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

San Francisco Versus the Church

Since the mid 1990s, there has been a state of war between the government of the city of San Francisco and the Catholic Church. The city and archdiocese had grown up together, in reasonable harmony, and this state of war was a new thing. What had changed? Simply this: by the mid 1990s, homosexual activists had taken power in the city. As the homosexual activists grow more powerful the war grows hotter.

If you attempt to promote Church’s teaching on homosexuality in San Francisco you face an implacable enemy. This is not only true in San Francisco. We've seen the same thing in Connecticut, where Bill #1098, authored by two homosexual activist legislators, attempted essentially to facilitate a takeover of the Church in Connecticut by forcing a restructuring of Church governanace.

In San Francisco, there were two important event this past week. First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the lawsuit brought by two San Francisco Catholics against the city and county of San Francisco. The suit was provoked by the City’s Resolution #168-06, which called the Catholic Church “hateful” and “discriminatory". Resolution 168-06 was provoked by Vatican insistence that children being placed for adoption by Catholic adoption agencies should not be placed in same-sex households--that to do so would be to deliberately deny such children of their fundamental right to be raised by a mother and father. This rather commonsensical insistence was, in turn, provoked by the actions of at least two branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco), which had already placed children in such households. More on this below.

The second event was the ongoing attempt by the city to levy somewhere between $3 million and $15 million dollars of new taxes on the Archdiocese. The city is attempting to justify this on the basis of an Archdiocesan restructuring of assets. Other non-profit organizations are watching this closely.

The San Francisco Chronicle first reported this on January 14, 2009:

“San Francisco will try to collect up to $15 million in taxes from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which is refusing to pay certain taxes on properties the church is transferring from one Catholic nonprofit organization to another.

‘The city has applied the law in an uneven fashion (e.g. We are aware of non-Archdiocesan, non-Catholic charities which have transferred property to other charities and no transfer tax has been levied),’ wrote Jack Hammel, legal counsel for the archdiocese, in an e-mail to the assessor's office.

San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said the tax is fair and equitable. He said his office spent months investigating the archdiocese's case and considering all of the reasons the church might be exempt from the tax.”

We thought then, and we think now, that this action by the city was in response to the Church’s support of Proposition 8. (We also contend that the actions of the Connecticut legislators was in direct response to the Connecticut Diocese’s opposition to same-sex “marriage” in that state). As we mentioned at the time, Assessor Ting had made news in 2008 for officiating at same-sex “weddings.” The Sing Tao Daily reported:

‘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.’

Yesterday, June 6, 2009, the Chronicle had a follow-up story:

“Both sides agree that the year-long battle, which will come to a head at a June 16 appeals hearing, isn't only about the millions of dollars at stake for the local Catholic Church and city coffers. It could also have wide-ranging implications for hundreds of other nonprofit groups…”

“A city appeals board - made up of the city controller, treasurer and head of the real estate division - will hold the hearing on June 16 to determine whether the church owes the taxes. If his office is successful, Ting estimates the archdiocese could owe between $3 million and $15 million in taxes.”

The Chronicle tells us the review will be heard by “A city appeals board - made up of the city controller, treasurer and head of the real estate division …”

And who are they? The city controller is Mr. Ben Rosenfield. So far, so good. But the treasurer is Mr. Jose Cisneros. Mr. Cisneros sits on the Board of Directors of Equality California, the group whose mission is to shove same-sex "marriage" down the throats of Californians. (Assessor Phil Ting also sits on the board.) Here’s Mr. Cisneros (center), protesting the passage of Proposition 8. The man to his right is San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty.

(Photo courtesy Steve Rhodes and Flickr.)

The head of the real estate division is Ms. Amy L. Brown. Here she is, coaching other city employees on how to perform same-sex “marriages.”

(Photo courtesy Brant Ward, San Francisco Chronicle)

Ms. Brown was also a donor to “No on 8-Equality California” the PAC of Equality California.


That’s the same “Equality California” on whose board city treasurer Jose Cisnero and city Assessor Phil Ting sit.

With Cisneros and Brown as two of the three members of the review board, will the Church get a fair hearing? We doubt it. Look for this to end up in court, where public attorneys--paid in part by the tax dollars of Catholics--will try to hamstring the Church.
______________________________________________________________

That’s one story. The other was the dismissal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the lawsuit against the city by San Francisco Catholics over Resolution 168-06.

It is important to recognize that the genesis of that lawsuit was not the action by the city but the action by Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco.

As we said above, the lawsuit was in response to the resolution by the city, which was in response to a statement from the Vatican, which was in response to actions by Catholic Charities. The entire series of events was set in motion by Catholic Charities’ defiance of the teachings of the our Church. It is also important to recognize that throughout that conflict Catholic Charities was on the side of the city, not the Church.

While it is bad that the city government is now an enemy of our Church, it is far worse that elements within Catholic Charities, using the name “Catholic,” actively work to undermine Church teaching. Despite its name, the fact is that Catholic Charities is more an arm of the city than it is of the Church. In 2007-2008 Catholic Charities CYO received over 68% of its entire operating revenue ($21,471, 994 of $31,072,409) in the form of government contracts.

One of those sponsoring Resolution 168-06 was the openly homosexual Supervisor Bevan Dufty. Reader of “A Shepherd’s Voice” will remember that, following the resolution, Catholic Charities tried to finesse Church teaching, by outsourcing their adoptions service to “Family Builders by Adoption” who call themselves “the gayest (adoption) agency in the country.” The “consultant” for this partnership was the same Supervisor Bevan Dufty who not only voted for but was a sponsor of Resolution 168-06--the same Supervisor Bevan Dufty who is pictured above with city treasurer Jose Cisneros, who will rule on the Church’s tax appeal next week.

As has been amply demonstrated, the partnership obligated Catholic Charities to “increase the number of children placed in “LGBT” households. And Catholic Charities was well aware of this when they signed on.

Thankfully the contract between Catholic Charities and Family Builders by Adoption ends this month, and it will not be renewed. That is strictly due to the outrage expressed by Catholics faithful to our Church’s teaching. Catholic Charities claimed that the partnership was only intended to be short term, but that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. And the departure of the former Executive Director, Mr. Brian Cahill, gives reason for hope. But the problem predated Mr. Cahill, and the relationship between Catholic Charities and the same people who called the our Church “hateful” continues to this day—as it must, since those are the same people from whom Catholic Charities receives the vast majority of its operating revenue.

This Thursday, June 11, Catholic Charities will host its annual “Red House” fundraiser to benefit those suffering from AIDS. Look at the Honorary Committee. It includes Mayor Gavin Newsom, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, and transvestite male entertainer “Donna Sachet,” who is also a board member of Equality California. Below is "Sachet" (in red) with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (Photo courtesy Malcom and Cook's Boulevard)

Why are people like that still being honored by Catholic Charities? Given this, is it right for Catholic Charities to still be one of the very few organizations for which there is a mandated second collection in every church in the Archdiocese?

As long as the Church teaches that it is better for a child to be brought up by a mother and a father than by a homosexual couple, and as long as the church teaches that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, and as long as there are homosexual activists running the government of San Francisco, this enmity will continue.

Since our Church cannot change its teaching on this issue, the activists--in conjunction with likeminded persons both inside and outside the Church--will try to intimidate the Church from without and undermine it from within. The Thomas More Law Center will appeal the Ninth Circuit’s verdict--but the more dangerous issue, the undermining of Church teaching from within, can only be addressed by the Archdiocese.

More on Tuesday.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Shadow "Churches"

We ended yesterdays long post on this note:

"...the activists--in conjunction with likeminded persons both inside and outside the Church--will try to intimidate the Church from without and undermine it from within."

We ask forebearance for rehashing old ground, but the lesson must be learned--and what actually happened in San Francisco is an important lesson. In 1997, homosexual activists in Catholic Charities, in conjunction with the City of San Francisco, worked to force "domestic partnership" benefits on the Archdiocese, and then in 2006, they forced the Archdiocese into allowing adoptions to same-sex households. The 2006 scenario was practically a carbon copy of the 1997 event, which makes sense, since it worked so well for the activists in '97.

“Undermining from within”

How did this come about? In the 1980s, Catholic Charities stepped up admirably to help those suffering from the AIDS epidemic. They continue to do good work with AIDS sufferers to this day. Since over 90% of San Franciscans suffering from the disease were men who engage in “sex” with other men, this meant that Catholic Charities would be working very closely with same-sex attracted men, and, unsurprisingly, a large number of homosexual persons ended up in the organization. From a San Francisco Examiner article of January 30, 1997:

“With strong connections to the Bay Area gay community - and with gay employees itself – the group (Catholic Charities) has struggled at times to distance itself from Catholic anti-homosexual doctrine, according to some gay Catholics. But that division has been difficult to maintain, say ex-employees, who complain they couldn't hand out condoms, discuss safe sex in an unrestricted fashion or disagree with decisions by the hierarchy….

Franco Lacayo, a former Catholic Charities AIDS case manager who resigned three years ago, said there were many gay people working at Catholic Charities. He said that when he worked at the agency he had been frustrated because he wasn't supposed to hand out condoms and because gay people were discouraged from displaying gay slogans . . . – “Catholic Charities delays AIDS event. Flap over domestic partners alienates gay employees.”-SF Examiner, January 30, 1997"

So we see that homosexual activists had infiltrated the organization no later than the early 1990’s. While those activists disagreed with the Church, they were in agreement with the government--and the government was ready to show its fist. What follows is an abbreviated version of events (for more details, go here).

By 1997 the city had passed an ordinance that required all those doing business with the city to provide domestic partner benefits to their employees--including same-sex couples. The Archdiocese refused to do this, since it is in conflict with Church teaching.

"Intimidation from Without"

So the city (which, as we pointed out yesterday, supplies Catholic Charities with the overwhelming majority of its funding) threatened to withdraw funding if the domestic partnership benefits weren't granted. After a lot of back and forth, threatened lawsuits, etc., the Archdiocese caved. A “compromise” was crafted, that allowed any person working for Catholic Charities to name any other person as a "domestic partner." And where did that "compromise" come from? According to openly lesbian Supervisor Susan Leal:

"...a representative of Catholic Charities had also floated the proposal."

Long story short: the proposal was accepted, the homosexual activists won, and Church teaching lost. After the dust settled, in an interview with “First Things,” then-Archbishop William J. Levada commented:

“It is a given in San Francisco, I am told, that politicians concerned about their future weigh very carefully the impact of their speech and actions on the gay and lesbian voters...But it would be my hope that our experience here would provide good reasons why any proposal elsewhere for similar legislation on domestic partners should be defeated."

One shares the Archbishops hope. But as the 2006 gay adoptions debacle showed, the Archdiocese had apparently learned nothing. In my opinion, it is unfair to blame Archbishop George Niederauer for this, since he was new to this hornet’s nest. Someone in the Archdiocese with some experience of the city should have tipped him off. In the event, he was blindsided by the activists.

After 2000, under the leadership of an openly homosexual director of programs and services Dr. Glenn Matula, (himself an adoptive "father") the activists inside Catholic Charities began placing children in the households of homosexual couples. Once again, an action totally in conflict with Church teaching. Once again, the Church stands up, argues for its right to be true to Catholic teaching. Once again, the city shows its fist, threatens to withhold funding. Once again, a “compromise” is crafted, this time under the “consultation” of openly homosexual supervisor Bevan Dufty, whereby Catholic Charities outsources its adoption program to “Family Builders by Adoption”, “the gayest (adoption agency) in the country”, on whose Board of Directors sat the same Dr. Glenn Matula, Director of Programs and Services at Catholic Charities. Once again, the proposal was accepted, the homosexual activists won, and Church teaching lost. It was a classic case of good cop/bad cop. The only upside is that this time our Archdiocese apparently learned something. They have cancelled Catholic Charities’ adoption program completely.

San Francisco and Connecticut

But as we said yesterday, there is an irreconcilable conflict between what the homosexual activists want and the teaching of our Church. Today the government of San Francisco, controlled by homosexual activists, has moved far beyond the bludgeon of program defunding. In payback for our Church’s defense of natural marriage, they are now trying a new interpretation of the tax code to punish the Church. That is very similar what happened earlier this year in Connecticut.

For now, it appears that the two homosexual activist legislators in Connecticut have overplayed their hand--for now. As Jack Smith (and others) have pointed out Connecticut Bill #1098 was nearly identical to a proposal put forward by members of "Voice of the Faithful," and its most vocal exponent was Professor Paul Lakeland. We know of Professor Lakeland in San Francisco: On Sunday June, 15, 2008 "Voice of the Faithful of Northern California" sponsored an address of his on “How the Laity Can Save the Church” at, where else, the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. For some reason that is no longer on the VOTF website, but we PDF’d it:






Shadow Power Structures

But let’s suppose that in Connecticut, Bill #1098 had passed, and that the activists had succeeded in restructuring the administration of parishes in that state. Who would have taken over? Are there any power structures being developed in or around the Church who could have stepped in? A power structure is simply a group of persons organized for common action. The homosexual activists we have described are one such power structure. In addition to corrupting Catholic Charities, they have completely taken over Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco. “Voice of the Faithful” is another such power structure--and, not coincidentally, two of the “Voice of the Faithful Northern California” leaders are also members of Most Holy Redeemer. Other power structures, potentially far more powerful, exist as well.

One of the recent developments in church life is the appearance of local “organizing committees” who work with groups of parishes. In the San Francisco Bay Area there are three: the “Bay Area Organizing Committee,” the “Marin Organizing Committee” and the “North Bay Sponsoring Committee.” In Los Angeles the organization is called “One LA.” They exist all over the country, including Connecticut.

They charge a fee, not small, for a parish to join. As it happens, I have some experience with one such group. In 2000, my parish signed up with the Bay Area Organizing Committee. We held some meetings. I, and a lot of the more active parishioners, were invited. I asked the leader of the BAOC what we were going to try and accomplish. The answer was that we were going to join together for common action. But for what aim? I asked. He responded that we were going to try and build an organization that would work on issues affecting the community. In other words, I got no answer. (Read this page from the “One LA” website to see what I mean.) This left me suspicious. Anyway, our relationship with the BAOC soon ended, because Fr. Malloy came in as Pastor the next year, and his idea was that the Catholic Church is all the organization you need.

What I did not know back in 2000, but I know now, is that every one of these "organizating committees" are all part of the Industrial Areas Foundation, an umbrella organization founded by the famous community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Certainly, some of the things the IAF pushes may be good, but so what? Remember that homosexual activism at Catholic Charities was a result of the organization’s admirable response to the AIDS epidemic. That response was a good thing too, but it also resulted in the development of an alternative power structure within the Archdiocese that has been a disaster.

Those activists did not want the Church to go away--they wanted to use it for their own ends. They had allies in government who could pressure the Archdiocese in such a way so that the activists seemed to be the ones able to offer a way out--thus strengthening their position. They were working together. The IAF affiliates are even more dangerous, because they are about developing power structures pure and simple. And nobody has any idea what they will use their power for.

Today, in Connecticut and San Francisco, we are seeing more government intimidation against our Church than ever before in American history. They won't try to get rid of the Church. They know that is impossible. What they will try to do is find allies within the Church who share their vision. Then they will use the power of government to help those allies create an institution more to their taste.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Where are we going?

On May 21, 2007, the "San Francisco Chronicle" ran an article ("SF's Same-sex couples asked to adopt foster kids.") about the recruiting effort by the city of San Francisco to find homosexual couples to adopt children. In the body of the article was the sentence: "Aiding San Francisco with its recruitment effort is Family Builders, an Oakland nonprofit adoption agency with which the city contracted to match parents with kids."

"Family Builders by Adoption" is a name familiar to Bay Area Catholics.

That article provoked this lengthy post.

From 2006: "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. . . Next month, the collaboration formally begins between Catholic Charities CYO and California Kids Connection, a statewide adoption exchange run by the Oakland-based nonprofit Family Builders by Adoption. . . . . '"

'When Catholic Charities first approached us, I was very hesitant. My organization has a long history of serving the gay, lesbian and transgender community. It was really ironic -- I had to make sure that our (!) integrity and values were not compromised.' -Jill Jacobs, Executive Director, Family Builders.

"There will be critics who say that kids will still be placed with same-sex couples,'' said (Brian) Cahill, (Executive Director, Catholic Charities CYO) who is planning "an aggressive recruitment'' of potential adoptive parents among the archdiocese's parishes. "That is true -- the largest potential number of adoptive parents in the foster care system are gay and lesbian couples. But this is what we are supposed to be doing. This is the work of the church."- Excerpts from "Catholic agency finds way out of adoption ban. Alliance with other groups gets around same-sex parent issue." San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, August 27, 2006. It should be mentioned that the Director of Services and Programs for Catholic Charities of San Francisco, Mr. Glenn Motola, also sits on the Board of Directors of Family Builders by Adoption.

On Monday, May 28, 2007, Family Builders by Adoption runs the following ad in the SF Chronicle:

The full-page ad was part of an ad campaign around the San Francisco Bay Area.

The website "California Catholic Daily" followed up the May 21, 2007 story and the May 28 ad campaign, with a story of their own "An Act of Moral Violence" on May 28, 2007. Some excerpts:

"'I think Catholic Charities in San Francisco is very supportive of all our work, they're just restrained by church edicts," said Jill Jacobs, executive director of Family Builders.

Catholic Charities had no comment on the ad campaign, but praised Family Builders.

'We greatly admire the work of Family Builders by Adoption, and that is why we have partnered with them on the California Kids Connection Web site, to help find adoptive homes for the most vulnerable children in the foster care system,' stated Executive Director Brian Cahill in an e-mail….

The Archdiocese of San Francisco did not respond to requests for comment on the campaign.'"

This post is an attempt to chronicle how and why the Archdiocese of San Francisco found itself unable to comment on the city of San Francisco's aggressive push to have children adopted by homosexual couples.

The controversy over the Catholic Charities/CYO facilitating of adoptions by same-sex couples is only one in an ongoing series of events. Simple sustained attention shows that there has been a relentless advancing of a "gay" agenda in the Archdiocese. Each "compromise" made by the Archdiocese, no matter how well-intentioned, was in fact a retreat. Then the position retreated to became the new ground from which further "compromises" were demanded. The main protagonists in this are Catholic Charities, the University of San Francisco/the Jesuits, and a few Catholic parishes. A chronological sample:

The Beginning:

On February 6, 1997, Archbishop William Levada grants domestic partnerships benefits to the gay employees of Catholic Charities. He does this in order to retain funding for Catholic Charities from the city of San Francisco. The Archbishop justifies this as part of a larger plan, one that will allow any non-married person to name another person with whom they live as a beneficiary. Since the Archbishop's generous plan was only announced after the threatened cancellation of funding, a reasonable person would conclude that the plan was developed as a response to the threat, not on its own merits. It is, in our opinion, a total cave-in to San Francisco's powerful gay lobby. San Francisco gay activist/Supervisor Tom Ammiano understands this perfectly well: "'I think this is a very positive step for the two entities -- the archdiocese and the city -- to try to coexist without devaluing each other's principles,'' Ammiano said." - SF Chronicle, 2/7/1997. Just how interested Supervisor Ammiano is in not "devaluing" the Church's principles will become evident in the years ahead.

"Gay Pride" in the Archdiocese:

Starting in the 1990s, things go on at Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco that one would not normally expect in a Catholic Church... More than once, clergy and parishioners officially represent Most Holy Redeemer, with banners, t-shirts, and an official contingent, in San Francisco's "Gay Pride" parade. The video below shows the participation of Most Holy Redeemer Church and St. Agnes ' Church in the 2005 & 2006 parades.

We must warn you that parts of this video are obscene; nevertheless, we do not apologize for posting it.

Most Holy Redeemer will have a contingent at the parade again this year, on Sunday, June 24. Please follow this link to their webpage promoting the event.

One picture is worth 1,000 words (follow link) : Sunday Mass lets out at Most Holy Redeemer Church.

One picture is worth 1,000 words (follow link): Most Holy Redeemer Pastor and (at that time) Archdiocesan Chancellor Fr. Steven Meriwether blesses parishioners on their way to the 2006 "Gay Pride" parade.

One picture is worth 1,000 words (follow link): Fr. Meriwether is currently the head of the "Ecumenical & Interreligious Affairs" Department of the Archdiocese.

St. Agnes Church in San Francisco, staffed by Jesuits, also has parishioners officially representing St. Agnes with an banner in the Gay Pride parade. Not only that, the Pastor himself, Fr. Cameron Ayers, attends the parade (see video link, above).

The University of San Francisco: Jesuit Education

On February 12, 2006 the University of San Francisco's "Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender Caucus" sponsors a seminar hostile to the Church. The seminar is held at Most Holy Redeemer on February 12, 2006, and is entitled "Is it Ethical to be Catholic?" The University, a Jesuit Institution, funds this group. Information about the event, as well as a complete transcript, may be found here.

On March 26, 2006 the University of San Francisco’s LGBTQ Caucus sponsors a seminar at St. Agnes Parish: “Alienated Catholics: Establishing the Groundwork for Dialogue.” A sample:

“Thus, despite coming up against Magisterial teachings to the contrary, the alienation which homosexual catholics experience is not rooted in that which they believe to be intrinsic to Christian tradition itself, but rather, is associated with an erroneous interpretation of tradition imposed by the teaching authorities of the church. To put it plainly, we simply disagree with the church’s interpretation of Scripture and Tradition which we otherwise experience as affirming.” -Dr. Vincent A. Pizzuto, Assistant Professor Theology and Religious Studies, USF

Same-sex Adoptions:

In 2005 it is revealed that branches of "Catholic Charities," including those in Boston and San Francisco, have been facilitating the adoption of children by same-sex couples. In 2003, the Vatican had insisted such adoptions stop, but that order had been ignored. In 2005-6, the Archdiocese of Boston finally complies. By doing this, it loses funding from the state of Massachusetts. In early 2006, the Archdiocese of San Francisco also says it will comply.

On March 21, 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issue a non-binding resolution, authored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano. It reads, in part: "It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need." (Supervisors Slam Vatican on Adoptions; San Francisco Chronicle, March 22, 2006) The article continues: "'It appears that Catholic Charities is trying to find a creative solution such as that one [the domestic partners "compromise" of 1997] when it comes to adoptions', said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, a gay Catholic, parent and grandparent who wrote the resolution adopted Tuesday." Once again, Supervisor Ammiano proves to have an admirably clear understanding of the dynamic situation.

In 2006, San Francisco gets a new Archbishop, George Niederauer. He is now faced with a similar challenge to the one faced by Archbishop Levada back in 1997: either allow Catholic Charities to allow adoptions by same-sex couples, or Catholic Charities will lose city and state funding. His response is similar to Levada's. On August 3, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle reports: "Catholic Charities plans to collaborate with both California Kids Connection, a network provided by the nonprofit Oakland-based Family Builders by Adoption, and the state Social Services department, which oversees the welfare of 82,000 foster children. Archbishop George Niederauer said that the new partnership would still allow children to be placed with gay and lesbian couples. 'That would be a decision that would be made by the adoption agency,' Niederauer said. 'We can no longer run an agency that makes those decisions.'"

In fact, Catholic Charities, an arm of the Archdiocese, will actually supply staffing to "Family Builders." And who are "Family Builders"? "We're about the gayest adoption agency in the country," Jill Jacobs, director of Family Builders by Adoption (which runs the network California Kids Connection), told the Bay Area Reporter, a homosexual newspaper. Jacobs confidently said that the new partnership poses no risk to its pro-homosexual policies since she had made it clear to Catholic Charities "who we were, and that in our own adoption program more than half the families we serve are LGBT families." -"A Distinction without a Difference", Catholic World Report. Again, it is probably worthy of mention that the Director of Services and Programs for Catholic Charities of San Francisco, Mr. Glenn Motola, also sits on the Board of Directors of Family Builders by Adoption.

On February 9, 2007, Archbishop Niederauer is interviewed on KCBS radio. Among other things, he comments on the adoptions "compromise": "… and I'm really very happy with the decision made by the Catholic Charities CEO, on that, was to work with the program on the Internet for finding homes for children, posting their pictures and being able to guide people who would be interested in this particular child to an adoption agency which could handle the situation." The transcript of the interview may be read here.

Blasphemous Bingo:

Beginning in October, 2006, Most Holy Redeemer Church begins hosting "Revival Bingo" on the first Thursday of the month in their basement hall. "Revival Bingo" is hosted by a group called the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." This group has been around for many years. Their chosen identity consists in the mockery of Catholic Sisters. The "Bingo" offers prizes such as spankings for the lucky winners. The November 2, 2006 bingo is MC'd by a person named "Peaches Christ," who claims to be a direct descendant of Jesus. The "Bingo" takes place in the same building that houses the Blessed Sacrament.

Two "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"

One Picture is worth 1,000 words (follow link): Fun on Bingo Night

News of this event sparked nationwide outrage among Catholics. Various Catholic blogs publicized this, and, as a result, the Archdiocese directs Most Holy Redeemer to discontinue the Bingo. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence issued a press release expressing "shock and surprise" at this: "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence believe that our commitment to giving is in alignment with the philosophy of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which represents a cross-section of the San Francisco population. It is unfortunate and extremely disappointing that this appears not to be the case, and that our shared values cannot overcome our differences of opinion when it comes to how we serve the community."

MHR Goes Global:

On April 29, 2007, the BBC World Service airs a "Gay Service" from Most Holy Redeemer. A transcript can be read here. As this is on the BBC's website, it has worldwide circulation. The Archdiocese issues a statement saying it did not know of the event, and had not approved it.

And this brings us back to where we began, and what provoked this post:

On Monday, May 21, 2007 the San Francisco Chronicle runs a long story on same-sex adoptions:

Excerpt: "Today, the San Francisco Department of Human Services is starting a campaign to recruit more people like the VanGundy's (two gay men) to adopt foster kids, especially teens, who are among the hardest to place. The agency sees gays and lesbians as an underutilized pool of potential parents. . . . Aiding San Francisco with its recruitment effort is Family Builders, an Oakland nonprofit adoption agency with which the city contracted to match parents with kids."

And, again, from California Catholic Daily:

"The Archdiocese of San Francisco did not respond to requests for comment on the campaign."

If you'd like to share your feelings about this:

US Nunciature
Archbishop Pietro Sambi
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W,
Washington, DC, USA
Telephone: (202) 333-7121Fax: (202) 337-4036

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio,
11, 00193
Roma, Italy
Telephone: 06.69.88.33.57 or 06.69.88.34.13 Fax: 06.69.88.34.09

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco
One Peter Yorke Way
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 614-5500
E-mail: info@sfarchdiocese.org

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

Speaking of Catholic Charities....

California Catholic Daily published an article on May 9 (written by us) on a May 2 column in the National Catholic Reporter by CCCYO Ex-Executive Director Brian Cahill:

"Clumsy, heavy-handed, ineffective”
Former head of San Francisco Catholic Charities blasts faithful bishops, condemns what he calls the ‘Official Church’

On May 2, the National Catholic Reporter published a column by Brian Cahill, ex-executive director of Catholic Charities of San Francisco, titled “Why let bishops drive us from church we love?” In the piece, Cahill excoriated a number of bishops, including two from California.

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.

Mr. Cahill’s column began, “Well-informed U.S. Catholics are acutely aware of the arrogance, paternalism, flawed logic, inflammatory rhetoric, failure of personal accountability, and lack of pastoral sensitivity of many of our church leaders. The U.S. bishops have set the tone with their continued denial of the wholesale rejection of church teaching on contraception; their clumsy, heavy-handed, ineffective attempt to influence national health care legislation; their opposition to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians; and their condemnation of the work of theologian St. Joseph Sr. Elizabeth Johnson without even meeting with her.”

Mr. Cahill then lambasted by name a number of cardinals and bishops, beginning with Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, “the latest U.S. poster boy for our church’s continued failure to confront the molestation scandal.” He then turned his pen against two of the finest thinkers in the Church today, Cardinal Raymond Burke and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver. Cardinal Burke and other unnamed bishops, Cahill said, were “shortsighted” because they favor “the Eucharist as a sanction against public officials.” Archbishop Chaput, said Cahill, “tried to tell us not to vote for presidential candidate Barack Obama.”

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington got it because, in Cahill’s words, he “referred to a Vatican pronouncement that equated child molestation and women’s ordination as a ‘welcome statement.’" Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix got the thumbs down from Cahill for “excommunicating a dedicated Mercy nun” just because she facilitated an abortion.

Cahill then criticized Bishop Robert Vasa of Santa Rosa because he “had forced a loyalty oath on all church employees in his former diocese.” Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of Oakland got it because he “trashed President Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown for not defending heterosexual marriage and for ignoring the will of the people.”

Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who leads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, earned Cahill’s displeasure for his defense of “the Roman church’s” teaching on natural marriage.

Cahill then gave a short list of those bishops who met his standards, or whom he simply knew and liked personally, since they were all from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. He began by lauding Robert McElroy, San Francisco’s newest auxiliary bishop, who sits on the Advisory Board of the University of San Francisco’s notorious Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought. Bishop McElroy was one of the two moral theologians who gave Catholic Charities, under Cahill’s leadership, the green light to form the partnership with Family Builders by Adoption.

Cahill also gave his OK to ex-Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco, “who continues his advocacy for the reform of the papacy.” It was Archbishop Quinn who began the slide at San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer Church by appointing Fr. Anthony McGuire as pastor in 1982. According to Fr. Donal Godfrey, this was the beginning of the archbishop’s warm relationship with the parish: “In fact Quinn came frequently and loved his visits to MHR.” Mr. Cahill is also a fan of MHR; he was the featured speaker at the church’s 2008 Ash Wednesday vespers service.

Cahill praised Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, a former Auxiliary Bishop of San Francisco, “a priest of deep compassion who has led the U.S. bishops in their advocacy for the needs of immigrants,” and current San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, “whose first response to an issue is always pastoral.

Cahill’s criterion for good bishop/bad bishop seems selective with regard to Archbishop Niederauer since the archbishop was instrumental in accomplishing the very thing Cahill criticizes Bishop Cordileone for: the defense of natural marriage in California. At the instigation of MHR pastoral council member Matt Dorsey, Archbishop Niederauer received the 2009 “Pink Brick” award by the organizers of the Gay Pride Parade, dishonoring the archbishop for allegedly causing “significant harm to the LGBT community.”

Cahill recently had another column published in Communion, the monthly newsletter of “Catholics for Equality,” in which he supported same-sex “marriage.” Like other Catholics for Equality writers and similar dissidents, Cahill condemns “the official church.” That term seems to be replacing the formerly preferred “institutional church.” The change of wording is significant. Dissidents and pro-homosexual activists no longer object to “the institutional church,” since they have begun to develop institutions of their own. Now the objection is more honest: it is to “the official church,” the Church of Rome, of the popes, and, for orthodox Catholics, of Jesus Himself.

Cahill served as executive director of San Francisco Catholic Charities from 2000-2008. In a March opinion piece published by the San Francisco Chronicle, Cahill revealed that he voted against Proposition 8 and gave $1000 to the unsuccessful campaign to defeat it. Under Cahill’s leadership, Catholic Charities merged with the archdiocese’s Catholic Youth Organization in 2003 to become Catholic Charities CYO, the name it still uses today.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

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

Catholic Charities: "We get government funds, so we are not Catholic."

In the Winter, 2000 issue of City Journal, Brian C. Anderson, analyzed the corruption of Catholic Charities following its ever-increasing acceptance of government funding. The article began:

"As advanced social thinkers rediscover the power of faith-based institutions to rescue the down-and-out by transforming the dysfunctional worldview that often lies at the root of their difficulties, you would think that Catholic Charities USA would be a perfect model to emulate, getting the poor into the mainstream by emphasizing moral values and ethical conduct. But no: rather than trying to promote traditional values and God-fearing behavior, Catholic Charities—and the same could be said about the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies or the Lutheran Services in America—has become over the last three decades an arm of the welfare state, with 65 percent of its $2.3 billion annual budget now flowing from government sources and little that is explicitly religious, or even values-laden, about most of the services its 1,400 member agencies and 46,000 paid employees provide."

We at A Shepherd's Voice have been discussing for some time, too. See here and here.


Mr. Anderson continues:

"For wayward kids, for welfare moms trying to break free of dependency, for heroin addicts or drunks trying to kick the habit, faith-based programs work best. Psychologist David Larson at the National Institute for Healthcare Research cites many studies that show a strong correlation between religious participation and rejecting crime and substance abuse; criminologist Byron Johnson of Lamar University has shown big drops in recidivism for prisoners who go through Charles Colson's faith-based Prison Fellowship Program."


And he gives this example:

"Catholic Charities would have found none of this surprising 70 years ago, but many of today's Catholic Charities agencies pay little attention to the power of faith to transform lives. Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum sparked a fierce controversy in 1996 when he rebuked Catholic Charities for drifting away from the faith under the pressure of government funding. Santorum told of a priest he knows who began a psychology internship at a Catholic Charities clinic. The clinic supervisor tested him on three hypothetical counselling situations: a depressed pregnant woman who wants to abort her child, two homosexuals seeking advice on their relationship, and a divorcing couple asking for counselling. In keeping with Catholic teachings, the priest advised against the abortion, refused to endorse homosexual unions, and encouraged the divorcing couple to save their marriage. He failed the test. His supervisor explained: 'We get government funds, so we are not Catholic.'"

The link to Mr. Anderson's article came from a December 21 article in Philanthropy Daily by Scott Walter called "Conquering the Private Sector", which extensively quotes the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Moynihan, who grew up in a tough neighborhood in New York, and knew something about the causes of poverty, expressed great fear at the government's ongoing takeover of private charitable institutuions.

"SF Versus the Catholics" Case to be Revisited

On Thursday, November 5, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a June, 2009 ruling that the City and County of San Francisco had not acted unconstitutionally by expressing an official hostility to religion . The ruling had been made by a three-judge panel. A majority of the judges on the Ninth Circuit has decided the case will get a rehearing by the full 11-judge panel.

The set-aside ruling concerned Resolution 168-06, issued in March 2006 by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Resolution 168-06 responded to a statement by William Cardinal Levada that Catholic Charities of San Francisco should not allow adoptive children to be placed in same-sex households. Resolution 168-06 called the Vatican’s statement “hateful” and “discriminatory” and it urged Catholic Charities and local Catholic officials to disregard it.

On Friday, November 6, the San Francisco Chronicle reported: “Robert Muise, lawyer for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which requested the rehearing, said he would argue that the city was ‘intervening in church affairs.’" Muise also said the supervisors resolution "called on local Catholics to literally defy church teaching, to defy Catholic leaders." Muise is an attorney at the Thomas More Law Center.

The case has its genesis in Catholic Charities of San Francisco’s decision to place adoptive children in homosexual households. Resolution 168-06, sponsored by openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano, was in response to the Vatican’s statement that to allow children to be adopted into households where there was not a mother and a father, and no likelihood of there ever being a mother or father, amounted to “doing violence to the children.” The Vatican’s action was itself in response to Catholic Charities’ practice of placing children into just such households.

The battle resulted in the ill-advised “partnership,“ brokered by openly homosexual Supervisor Bevan Dufty, between Catholic Charities of San Francisco and Family Builders by Adoption. The partnership resulted in Catholic Charities’ funding and staffing Family Builders by Adoption, an organization which is required by contract with the City and County of San Francisco to “increasing the number of children adopted by Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) adults." This was referred to by Archdiocesan officials as “remote cooperation.”

On August 11, 2009, California Catholic Daily broke the story that Family Builders by Adoption was advertising for adoptive “fathers” on the leather s/m page of the homosexualist website the Bay Area Reporter and on the “porn” page of the homosexualist website the San Francisco Bay Times. The CCD story caused Trent Rohrer, Executive Director of San Francisco’s Human Services Agency to direct Family Builders by Adoption to pull the ads. At the time, Mr. Rohrer said “We work in collaboration with Family Builders to recruit adoptive homes for foster youth, However, we were not aware nor would we ever authorize the use of these ads for any type of inappropriate websites and publications. Efforts have been made to contact a representative from Family Builders. We are in the process of resolving this matter and plan to pull the ads immediately.”

When the partnership between Catholic Charities and Family Builders by Adoption was announced, it set off a firestorm of protest among Catholics, although CCCYO’s then-Executive Director Brian Cahill referred to it as a “great opportunity.” The partnership was dissolved in June, 2009.

For complete details on the case, go here.

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

Everything that is Wrong With The Archdiocese of San Francisco

A version of this article appeared in the February 22 edition of California Catholic Daily.

Photo credit: Bill Wilson, Bay Area Reporter.

On Saturday, January 28, the Cathedral of St, Mary’s of the Assumption hosted an interfaith service and press conference. The event was held in support of AB 1081, a measure challenging the Federal “Secure Communities” program.

The event was organized by the San Francisco Organizing Project and PICO-California, which are ACORN-like organizations with whom the Archdiocese of San Francisco is in partnership. One of the invited speakers was San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. The Catholic San Francisco article covering the event said:

“Some 2,000 people, many of them Latinos who feel disproportionately targeted by what is known as the ‘Secure Communities’ program of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, attended an interfaith rally at St. Mary’s Cathedral Jan. 28 to ask Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris to support reform being drafted by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco.”

Catholic San Francisco chose not to mention that Ammiano was actually in attendance at the event, let alone that he was actually allowed to speak in the Cathedral, but other media outlets did. The media page of the PICO National Network mentioned that Ammiano addressed the pews. The homosexualist Bay Area Reporter jumped on the event in an article accurately titled “Archbishop, Ammiano Share Stage.” They not only mentioned Ammiano’s role, but included a photo of him (and Bishop Bill Justice and Archbishop George Niederauer) speaking in the Cathedral sanctuary, which is reproduced above.

Given Ammiano’s history of attacking the Catholic Church, CSF’s reticence is understandable. Of the many California politicians who have attacked the Catholic Church, Ammiano stands out. A complete list of his attacks on the family, on the Catholic Church, and on common decency would take more space than this article allows, but include:

1997:  Ammiano was instrumental in forcing the Archdiocese of San Francisco to pay benefits to the “domestic partners” of employees of San Francisco’s Catholic Charities. The plan eventually crafted by then-Archbishop William Levada caused Ammiano to say “I think this is a very positive step for the two entities -- the archdiocese and the city - to try to coexist without devaluing each other's principles.'' The insincerity of this remark is illustrated by the following examples.

1999: over the objections of the Church, the Board of Supervisors, at Ammiano's request, granted the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence a street-closure permit for the purposes of staging an event mocking the crucifixion on Easter Sunday. This now-annual event is the “Hunky Jesus” contest in which the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus is ridiculed. The 2011 event was held in the city’s Dolores Park. It included one man dressed as “Jesus” being masturbated on stage by one of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, in front of a large crowd which included children.

March 14, 2006: Ammiano introduced Resolution 168-06, which objected to the Catholic Church’s refusal to allow one of its organizations, Catholic Charities of San Francisco, to place children in homosexual households. Among other things the resolution stated that the teaching of the Catholic Church “is absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco”; that it amounted to “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric”; and that then-Cardinal Levada “is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former city”; further, it urged Archbishop Niederauer and Catholic Charities to “defy” Cardinal Levada.

Resolution 168-06 was a foretaste of the current HHS Mandate. It resulted in a lawsuit by faithful San Francisco Catholics, which made its way through the courts, although the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it. The suit’s last stop was the Ninth Circuit, where Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in dissent: “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.”

Law Professor Jonathon Turley, although he personally agrees with the city’s adoptions policy, noted the same thing: “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.’”

It was resolution 168-06 which caused the homosexualist San Francisco Bay Times to run a March 16, 2006 article headlined “Gay Supervisor Bitch-Slaps New Cardinal,” in which Ammiano was quoted as saying “Cardinal Levada is everything that’s wrong with the Catholic Church.”

Following the implementation of the disastrous adoptions “compromise” between Catholic Charities and Family Builders by Adoptions, Ammiano complimented Catholic Charities then-executive director Brian Cahill, a longtime opponent of the Church's teaching on homosexual adoption, for “crafting this” compromise, and invited everyone to move “…onward and upward, and gayly forward.” Faithful Catholics declined Ammiano’s advice, kept the pressure on, and in 2009 the Archdiocese severed all relations with Family Builders.

2008: Ammiano introduced resolution 408-08, which “celebrated commended, and congratulated” the infamous Folsom Street Fair, and declared September 28 to be “Folsom Street Fair” day. Ammiano’s resolution was adopted by the full Board of Supervisors on September 23, 2008.

Welcoming Ammiano into the Cathedral, unless he is there go to confession, is an abomination. Their Excellencies and the Cathedral staff should be ashamed of themselves.

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