Enemies of Archbishop Cordileone betray Bishop McElroy, fellow Priests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SF Supervisor Introduces Resolution Opposing Walk for Life West Coast Banners--claims they interfere with 'snowflakes'

Yesterday, San Francisco Supervisor David Campos, joined by six of his colleagues, introduced a resolution officially opposing the Walk for Life West Coast's "Abortion Hurts Women" banners that are currently flying on Market Street in preparation for the January 25, 2014 Walk for Life West Coast. Among other things, the Supervisor complained that the banners appear on lamp posts that "display holiday snowflakes." Well, there's a hanging offense!

You can read the San Francisco Chronicle article (which treats the resolution with the seriousness it deserves) on the resolution here, and the Walk for Life West Coast's response is below.


SF Supervisor Issues Resolution Opposing Walk for Life West Coast Banners
Concerned 'Abortion Hurts Women' Signs Interfere with 'Snowflakes'

On January 25, 2014 the 10th Annual Walk for Life West Coast will be held in San Francisco. In preparation, the Walk has placed 50 banners along Market Street, San Francisco’s main thoroughfare, and the route of the Walk. The banners, hung with city approval, proclaim the Walk’s message “Abortion Hurts Women.”

The banners have certainly worked. The December 31 San Francisco Chronicle reported: “The Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women wrote a letter to Mayor Ed Lee this week saying the banners contain ‘a false and hateful statement’ and demanded they be removed. Ellen Shaffer, director of the Silver Ribbon Campaign, said she considers the banners hate speech against women….” The Mayor rejected Ms. Shaffer’s “demand,” but now the SF Board of Supervisors has decided to get involved.

 The January 14, 2014 Chronicle reported: "Mayor Ed Lee may be staying out of the brouhaha over a series of anti-abortion banners on this liberal city’s main thoroughfare, but the Board of Supervisors isn’t. On Tuesday, Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution that would put the board on record opposing the banners, which read ‘Abortion hurts women’ and were put up last month in anticipation of a January 25 antiabortion rally.”

 The Department of Public Works, which issue permits for banners on Market Street does not judge content, only whether the banners show profanity or nudity. The six clauses from the resolution which the Chronicle reproduced were all about content, although Supervisor Campos was also on record as concerned that the banners were posted on “…lamp posts that also display holiday snowflakes.” The Chronicle article concluded “While the resolution may have many San Franciscans nodding in agreement, it’s seems unlikely that city has any legal right to refuse to post something simply because politicians don’t like the message...."

 Dolores Meehan co-chair of the Walk, and a fourth-generation San Franciscan, said “I’m practically speechless. Interfering with snowflakes. They’re so deficient in any sort of statesmanship, it’s actually expected. They’re ridiculous.”

 It’s not the first time the Supervisors have meddled with the Walk for Life West Coast. On January 11, 2005, in response to the first Walk for Life West Coast, the Supes issued resolution #050019, which declared “January 22, 2005 as ‘Stand Up For Choice Day.’” The resolution also supported “…the local Pro-Choice community demonstrating in San Francisco,” which, in practice, meant supporting those who attempted to block the Walk for Life West Coast from taking place. On December 11, 2012 the Supes issued resolution #121172, declaring January 26, 2013 to be a celebration of the Roe v. Wade decision, and again expressed support for a rally opposing the Walk. Since the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is actually on January 22, and January 26 happened to be the date of the city’s Ninth Annual Walk for Life West Coast, the resolution seemed targeted more at the Walk than a commemoration of Roe v. Wade.

Despite the Supervisors hostility, the Walk for Life West Coast has grown every year, from 7,500 participants in 2005 to an estimated 50,000 in 2013.

Walk co-chair Eva Muntean said "We are delighted with the publicity our banners have generated. We urge all people of good will to join us on January 25 as we march in defense of the littlest among us. Our opponents seek to censor our message ‘Abortion Hurts Women,’ not because it is false but because it is true. We invite San Franciscans to attend the rally and Walk, and especially to attend the Silent No More Awareness Campaign at 10:45 AM in Civic Center Plaza, where post-abortive women share their stories. Just listen to them and judge for yourselves if what you are hearing is ‘hate speech.’”

The 10th Annual Walk for Life West Coast is on Saturday, January 25 at San Francisco’s Civic Center Plaza. The Rally begins at 12:30 PM, followed by the Walk at 1:30.

For more information, visit: http://www.walkforlifewc.com/

USF’s Privett Compares “Vagina Monologues” to “Grammar School Christmas Pageant”

Departing President Gives Farewell Interview

The winter 2013 issue of USF Magazine, the magazine of the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco, profiled the school’s departing President, Fr. Stephen A. Privett. The interview began:

“USF President Stephen A. Privett, S.J., believes the time has come for new leadership at the university. Now in his 14th year as president—one of the longest tenures in USF history—he has formally announced that he will not renew his contract. This decision is not a surprise. When he renewed his contract in 2009, the USF Board of Trustees reluctantly agreed that his third five-year term would also be his last. The board has launched a search for Fr. Privett’s successor. Fr. Privett is a man of conviction, and he says what he thinks. That was on full display in his three-hour interview with USF Magazine.”

The laudatory interview mentioned almost none of the things that readers of the Cardinal Newman Society, LifeSiteNews, or California Catholic Daily would associate with Fr. Privett’s name. An exception was a question about “The Vagina Monologues.” When asked “Why does USF stage the Vagina Monologues when other Catholic universities have banned it?” Privett began his response: “As I tell our students, the Vagina Monologues has all the appeal of the annual grammar school Christmas pageant. It’s the same old thing year after year….”

Privett’s comparison of sixth graders singing Silent Night to a play which includes an approving scene of a teenager being sexually abused by an adult can be interpreted in one of three ways.

If we take him seriously, Privett either means he finds a play which approves of teenagers being sexually abused by adults as cute as sixth graders singing Silent Night. Alternatively, it can mean that he finds sixth graders singing Silent Night as disgusting as a play which approves of teenagers being sexually abused by adults.

The third possibility is that he is speaking ironically. In that case, it’s the response of a jaded sophisticate, way too hip and morally blasé to understand why either Eve Ensler or faithful Catholics would take “The Vagina Monologues” seriously, let alone why anyone at all might take a “grammar school Christmas pageant” seriously. He is not concerned with the content of “The Vagina Monologues” nor of a grammar school Christmas pageant but only that it’s “the same old thing year after year….”

The comment crystallizes Fr. Privett’s enfeebled sense of morality. It is a fitting coda to his Presidency.

The article also included a timeline of USF events during his presidency that either the interviewer or Privett thought important. The timeline did not include the closing of the school’s graduate program in Theology; the disemboweling of the school’s St. Ignatius Institute; the appointment as Chair of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies an open homosexual who left the Catholic Church to be ordained priest in a “Catholic” church not in communion with Rome; or the appointment of an open homosexual as Executive Director of University Ministry. It also did not list the hosting of any number of speakers, conferences, and guests, far too many to name here, who hold and promote positions in direct opposition to the Catholic faith, nor did it indicate that on at least two occasions speakers/groups were hosted in direct opposition to the wishes of then-Archbishop George Niederauer.

The search for a new President of the Jesuit University is underway. Those interested may visit: https://www.usfca.edu/presidentialsearch/ The webpage also accepts nominations for the position.

Pelosi and "that conscience thing": Dead Silence From One Peter Yorke Way

Nancy Pelosi's latest attack on faithful Catholics has been widely reported. From LifeNews:

"Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is at it again, bashing Catholics for their pro-life position when she has promoted abortion in defiance of Catholic Church teaching at every turn.

This time, Pelosi is upset that the nation’s Catholic bishops are protesting a potential Obama administration decision forcing insurance companies to cover birth control, contraception and drugs that could cause abortions. They say certain religious groups may not be exempt from providing the insurance, which would violate their moral and religious views.

Pelosi says the position is akin to having hospitals “say to a woman, ‘I’m sorry you could die’ if you don’t get an abortion,” she told the Washington Post.

“Those who dispute that characterization “may not like the language,’’ she said, “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing”...

That is the position of "devout Catholic" Pelosi at the exact time faithful Catholics nurses are threatened with losing their jobs for refusing to participate in the killing of unborn children. There has been no reponse from Archbishop George Niederauer.

We point out that nearly five years ago, in his pastor's message of January 14, 2007, Fr. Malloy had no trouble responding to Pelosi, in the clearest possible English:

"Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice , i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Judge Rules for SF Archdiocese in Transfer Tax Case

From today's Catholic San Francisco:

"A Superior Court judge on Nov. 18 issued an opinion that would throw out an attempted multi-million-dollar “delinquent” tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor/recorder, Phil Ting, after a more than three-year legal fight.

Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a 43-page “Tentative Statement of Decision” in favor of the archdiocese, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the archdiocese, reported Nov. 22. A case management conference is scheduled Jan. 9, 2012....Kramer agreed with the archdiocese’s central arguments: The transfers were not “realty sold,” and the transfers were a change in the form of ownership that did not make them subject to transfer tax.

“The Archdiocese of San Francisco is delighted that the Superior Court has vindicated the position the archdiocese has taken all along,” said George Wesolek, director of communications for the archdiocese.... “It would have chilled the missions of this and all churches, religions and non-profit organizations in the city, and would have sent ripples through the for-profit community as well... Fortunately, the court saw through this attempt.”

Mr. Wesolek then notes that this is another case of San Francisco Democratic Party politicians using the legal system to harass good people at public expense, just like they are doing right now with First Resort:

“The Assessor/Recorder apparently expected the archdiocese to roll over in the face of this attack but underestimated the resolve of the church. It is unfortunate that the miscalculation forced the archdiocese to spend more than three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defeat this illegal action, but the archdiocese is hopeful that the Assessor/Recorder’s office will now be dissuaded from taking similar measures in the future.”

Don't hold your breath, George.

You can read our previous posts on the issue here.

SF's Catholic Supervisor Mark Farrell on His Crisis Pregnancy Center Vote

The greatest issue facing “a Catholic in elected public office” in the United States is legalized abortion. On October 18, the Catholic Supervisor Mark Farrell was one of 11 San Francisco Supervisors to vote on legislation restricting the message of crisis pregnancy centers. His vote, and his statement about his vote, are interesting because on Tuesday, November 15, he will address the Young Adults Group of St. Vincent de Paul Church in San Francisco. The Young Adult’s calendar of events states: “Supervisor Mark Farrell will be joining the group to share some of his personal stories and reflections as a Catholic in elected public office.”

Here is his statement, taken verbatim from the caption notes to the video of the meeting and vote. Typography in the original; interpolations in brackets added:

"Supervisor farrell: “this has been a tough one for me and I will be supporting the legislation. First, this is not about first resort."

(Who, then, is it about? The only other crisis pregnancy center in San Francisco is the Alpha Pregnancy Center, a much smaller organization).

"I know lot of people have insinuated that. I have a lot of friends involved with the organization and I have great things to say about it. Second, this is a cautionary warning."

(Who is being cautioned? Read on.)

"At the end of the day, I don' t have a problem or regulating advertising and saying false or misleading advertising is wrong. I have no problem doing that and why I will be supporting this today. I have seen a lot of evidence in e-mail change going around looking at google search results and algorithms. All lot of that stuff is not controlled by people to advertise. A clear warning -- I think you could go down a very slippery slope."

(Who is the “you” that Supervisor Farrell is addressing? It can only be his fellow board members--and himself. What is the slippery slope? As Farrell’s colleague, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, the only Supervisor to vote against the ordinance, pointed out: “Four cities have passed ordinances like this. Three of those cities have seen those tossed out. The fourth is in the middle of litigation right now. I do not believe the record is sufficient to beat that threshold.”)

"Google has a provision against false or misleading advertising. To say that by buying certain key words you are doing false or misleading advertising, you' re going after google itself, and we need to take a hard look at the ways we' re going to enforce this law going forward, but I will be supporting it today.”

So, according to Supervisor Farrell:

1) First Resort is a great organization.

2) Google already “has a provision against false or misleading advertising.” Supervisor Farrell’s clear implication is that if First Resort or Alpha Pregnancy were engaged in “false or misleading advertising”, Google, a far more capable organization than the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would have nailed them already.

3) Supervisor Farrell offers his colleagues (and himself): “A clear warning -- I think you could go down a very slippery slope.”

4) Supervisor Farrell then proceeds to vote for the legislation.

Supervisor Farrell’s statement is hardly a model of clear thinking or a profile in courage. After listing all the problems with the legislation, he then proceeds to vote for it. Hardly a good message for the Catholic Young Adults.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF Crisis Pregnancy Centers: "False & Misleading Advertising" Not Demonstrated

Today the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors heard testimony about the proposed law that would "prohibit pregnancy centers from engaging in false or misleading advertising practices."

The legislation was introduced by Supervsor Malia Cohen and City Attorney Dennis Herrera. We had posted on this story back on August 2 & 3, where we wrote:

"The real purpose of the proposed ordinance is twofold: first, to harass the crisis pregnancy centers at public expense. That's because they threaten the Democrats' sacred cow, Planned Parenthood. It's just a fact that every baby born represents a financial loss for Planned Parenthood, and centers such as First Resort and Alpha Pregnancy help babies to be born and raised. Secondly, Dennis Herrera is running for mayor, and he thinks this will help his campaign."

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"Two San Francisco supervisors, concerned over First Amendment issues, were hesitant about moving forward with a proposed law that would prohibit pregnancy centers from engaging in false or misleading advertising practices.

Centers that break the the law could face civil action by the city and fines up to $500 per violation.

The legislation takes aim at pregnancy centers that oppose abortion. The concern is that women with unplanned pregnancies are tricked into thinking that certain pregnancy centers will give them information on all of their options, including abortion, when that’s not the case.
“This legislation has been carefully crafted to ensure a balance between protecting the most vulnerable members of our communities and protecting the constitutional rights of everyone,” said Supervisor Malia Cohen, chief sponsor of the legislation, which has the backing of pro-choice advocates.

But opponents said if the legislation is approved, it would put the city at legal risk of trampling on the First Amendment.

“This law attacks one group of pregnancy resource providers, but not another group with a competing message,” said Shari Plunkett, CEO of First Resort, a pregnancy counseling center and women’s health clinic that will not perform abortions, nor tell clients where they can get the procedure done....

Supervisors, after being briefed by the city attorney, said that in order to mount a strong defense against a likely legal challenge, the city would have to produce a record of false and misleading advertising.

Imagine that--the city should have to prove what it says. But as we said, this is a "nuisance lawsuit" designed to harass crisis pregnancy centers at public expense. But as both Supervisor Avalos and Elsbernd, noted you gotta have at least some kind of a case.

But both Supervisors John Avalos and Sean Elsbernd, who serve on the committee, said such a record wasn’t demonstrated. The best legislative backers could come up with were reviews on Yelp and a search on Google when people plugged in the phrase “abortions in San Francisco” and Plunkett’s First Resort organization popped up as the second link.

“This legislative record here, to me, is empty,” Elsbernd said.

Avalos expressed a similar concern. The committee sent the legislation on to the full board without recommendation for consideration next week, with Avalos suggesting that evidence of false advertising be collected before that vote.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

More on SF Politicians Harassing Pegnancy Centers

Zombie, San Francisco's invaluable photojournalist, is about the only "pro-choicer" we like. (We put pro-choicer in quotes because when you trace the position to first principles, it is in contradiction with itself). He understands, as we said yesterday, that the city's attack on crisis pregnancy centers is nothing more than a "nuisance lawsuit."

Here's Zombies take:

"Not aborting fetuses will soon be a crime in San Francisco.

At least that’s what the city government is pushing for in its bizarre new attack on pregnancy counseling centers.

Actually, 'bizarre' is too mild a word to describe San Francisco’s latest outburst; even from my pro-choice perspective, the city’s attempt to essentially banish any counseling center which doesn’t encourage or perform abortions is simply beyond belief."

Well, we can't agree with that. Nothing that happens in San Franciso politics is beyond belief. Anyway, Zombie then brings us to the point:

"Hold on just a moment. Everybody freeze. What exactly is 'First Resort' accused of doing wrong? Buying a Google ad? Let’s look at the specifics.

If you scour First Resort’s Web site, nowhere do they claim that they provide abortions, or even advocate for abortions. In fact, quite the opposite: they use various code words like 'values' and 'adoption' which make it pretty clear they’re coming from a 'keep the baby' perspective in their counseling.

So what’s the problem? San Francisco’s municipal government apparently had a conniption fit over the placement of First Resort’s Google ad. In particular, if you Google the words 'abortion' and 'San Francisco,' the very top result is a listing for the First Resort clinic.

Does the ad itself say that First Resort provides abortions? No. Does it even mention abortions? No. It just says 'First Resort – Unplanned Pregnancy.' Nothing more. But gosh darn it, the ad pops up if someone does a Google search!...

This could be a legal first. Has any other business or organization ever been sued over their Google search ranking? Because that’s what this is all about. Remember that neither First Resort’s Web site nor the ads linking to their Web site make any claims about providing abortions. No, the only basis for a 'false advertising claim' against them is not the content of their advertising, but the placement of it."

Zombie concludes (and remember, he is "pro-choice"):

"Here is the nightmare scenario that San Francisco is trying to prevent: A woman gets pregnant, isn’t sure whether or not she wants to keep the baby, does a Google search and blindly clicks on the top link simply because it’s at the top, ignores all the clues on the company’s Web site ('values,' etc.), goes in for an appointment — and (horrors!) the counselor she meets with convinces her to keep the baby, or even give it up for adoption, rather than 'terminating' it.

It’s quite obvious that the city simply wishes these kinds of 'values-based' counseling centers didn’t exist at all; but lacking any other way to legally boot them out of town, they latched onto the flimsy “false advertising” charge, simply as a method to drive them away (or underground) with nuisance lawsuits.

Remember, no one is accusing First Resort or the other centers of forcing anyone to not have an abortion. No, their only crime is to have 'values'-based conversations with pregnant women.

Like New York and Baltimore, I believe the city will lose this case. But that is not their point. As we said yesterday their point is using public money to harass crisis pregnancy centers. If they lose, who cares? You, the citizens of San Francisco, are paying for it. And they force First Resort, et al, to use resources that otherwise might go to helping pregnant women.

Most Holy Redeemer Hosts Transvestite Ball (Again)

From today's California Catholic Daily:

“Switch Hitters Ball”
Transvestite event held on property of San Francisco archdiocese -- at Most Holy Redeemer Church, of course

Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church hosted a fundraiser on Saturday, June 11, for the San Francisco Gay Softball League called the “Switch Hitters Ball. The Switch Hitters Ball has been hosted by Most Holy Redeemer each year since at least 2007.....

The number of transvestites exiting cars in front of the church and entering the church hall on June 11 was notable even for a Saturday night in the Castro, and left no doubt as to the nature of the event. By 6:45 p.m., a boisterous crowd, almost exclusively male, had already filled the church hall. The packed room (capacity 325) included a number of male transvestites, as well as at least one apparent member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence...."

Read the whole thing. But since pictures (and video) are worth 1000 words, here is a picture and a link to a video from the "Switch Hitters Ball" held at MHR in 2008. Remember, what you see is taking place in the parish hall of an (ostensibly) Catholic Church on the property of the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Photo courtesy "Streets of San Francisco."

Video of the same performance may be found here. We await a response from the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Our Nancy Elected Minority Leader

No surprise.

To see why Nancy gets about 80% of the vote in SF, visit Zombie's "Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco" photo essay. Warning: definitely NOT safe for those unable to face the reality of San Francisco, the liberal's utopia. It includes a number of photos of our opposition at the Walk for Life West Coast

___________________________________________________________

*For the origin of the "Gay Rome" tag, go here. It's at about 1:14 into this audio of USF's "Queer Perspectives" seminar, sponsored by the Lane Center, and held at (where else?) Most Holy Redeemer.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Professor Jonathon Turley on Ninth Circuit / Catholic League Case

Liberal law Professor Jonathon Turley weighs in on the Catholic League case. Professor Turley says he agrees with the sentiment expressed by the city--but recognizes that to be a different issue from what the court had to decide:

"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."

The Professor also says:

"I have struggled with this case because I find the language of the resolution troubling — though not the sentiment."

But the "language of the resolution" is the resolution. And as the three judges who supported Catholic League pointed out, the sentiment does not matter--the resolution is what is at issue.

"Regardless of what the underlying motivation may be for the various individuals on the city council, a court must, in deciding whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause, read the words of the government enactment."

Jack Smith Weighs In On Catholic League Case

And, as usual, makes a very good point. He quotes this bit from the opinion of the judges who sided with the city of San Francisco:

"We would have a different case on our hands had the defendants called upon Cardinal Levada to recant his views on transubstantiation, or had urged Orthodox Jews to abandon the laws of kashrut, or Mormons their taboo of alcohol. Those matters of religious dogma are not within the secular arena in the way that same-sex marriage and adoption are."

Then says:

"Translated, your freedom of religion encompasses all the superstitious voodoo you care to indulge in, but you may not have a religious dogma at variance with something the City cares about – like sex.

Ninth Circuit / Catholic League Story in Today's California Catholic Daily

Check it out here:

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=8a16ea66-5e48-4439-882b-9bcbba81ca1f

In Newsom's San Francisco "Not only is the fox guarding the henhouse, the fox has opened a KFC franchisce"

An excellent article in the SF Weekly. Despite the fact that the SF Weekly carries advertising for pot clubs and massage parlors, it also produces the best reporting on the disaster that is San Francisco politics--far better than the San Francisco Chronicle. Needless to say, every single politician mentioned is a Democrat. Please remember this, Californians, when you see Gavin Newsom's name on the ballot for Lieutenant Governor.

Here are excerpts, with the link to the full article at the bottom.

Let it Bleed: The city is awash in red ink, thanks to billion-dollar benefit giveaways and our politicians' lack of will.

"'Infinite' is not a word you expect to find in a report on municipal spending. It's more of a science fiction–type term — Tremble, Earthling, before the infinite might of Galaxor! But there it was, in a recent report on San Francisco's finances: Spending on the city's employee retirement system in the past decade had grown at an "infinite" rate.

Naturally, that's an exaggeration. If you do the math, the city's retirement costs for employees in the past 10 years actually grew only 66,733 percent....

In fiscal year 1999-2000, the city spent about $300,000 on its retirement system. In fiscal year 2009-10, it was $200.5 million. Benefits alone — not salaries, just benefits — for current and retired employees this year are budgeted at $993 million. Spending on retirees' health care and pensions is conservatively projected to triple within five years. ...

This election cycle, the city's practiced mastery of procrastination and hand-wringing has been brought to the fore by Proposition B, a so-called pension reform measure that would require increases in pension and health care contributions from the city's workforce. Its author, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, admits that it doesn't come close to solving the fiscal nightmare. But even this baby step has been subjected to a coordinated assault. Unions have assembled a million-dollar war chest against it; the Democratic County Central Committee voted 29-0 to tell people to vote against it; every single elected official (besides Adachi) has gone on record opposing it — and Mayor Gavin Newsom has said publicly that, if it passes, he expects to find a way around it."

_____________________________________

I wish I could write as cleverly as these guys:

"At a September hearing, Supervisor Carmen Chu repeatedly referred to a 4.5 percent return as the "worst-case scenario." Clearly, she has worked in government too long. When you invest, the "worst case" is that you lose money, not that you have 4.5 percent more of it than when you started."

"In San Francisco, when labor asks to change a twenty, it always gets back three fives and a ten."

"Not only is the fox guarding the henhouse, the fox has opened up a KFC franchise."

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Split Ninth Circuit Rejects Catholic League Suit

But the issue is apparently not decided.

The Catholic League's suit is an ongoing part of the Catholic Charities/Family Builders by Adoptions fiasco. As we argued in part two of a June 7, 2009 post, the true genesis of this lawsuit was not the action by the city, in issuing Resolution 168-06, but the action by Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco:

"...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."

From today's San Francisco Chronicle:

"A splintered federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday by Catholics who objected when San Francisco supervisors condemned the Vatican for prohibiting Catholic Charities from placing adoptive children with gay and lesbian couples.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied requests by a Catholic organization and two local residents to order the city to repeal the supervisors' 2006 resolution.

But the 8-3 ruling failed to decide whether the city had expressed official hostility toward Catholicism, in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state."

Three judges said yes, Resolution 168-06 was anti-Catholic, three said no, and five said the Ninth Circuit did not need to decide the case:

"Only six judges addressed the question of whether San Francisco had attacked Catholicism, splitting 3-3.

Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, joined by Judges Sandra Ikuta and Jay Bybee, said the resolution was anti-Catholic, portrayed the church as a 'hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco's affairs,' and entangled the city in 'church governance' by urging the local archbishop to defy the Vatican.

Judge Barry Silverman, along with Judges Sidney Thomas and Richard Clifton, countered that the resolution had a legitimate non-religious purpose, 'to promote equal rights for same-sex couples,' and the supervisors were entitled to criticize church officials who 'have chosen to enter the secular fray.'

The other five judges said there was no need to decide the issue. They said private citizens who are merely offended by a government resolution that requires no action on their part have no concrete interests at stake and thus no standing to sue.

From the ruling, it's easy, to me at least, to see why Robert Muise, of the Thomas More Law Center, vowed an appeal, saying: "the ruling left the law so murky that 'the only one that can clarify this is the Supreme Court.'"

Opinion

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:

A majority of the court has concluded that the plaintiffs have standing. A separate majority, for differing reasons, affirms the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim.

Parts I and II of this opinion are joined by Judges THOMAS, SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, BYBEE, and IKUTA.

Part III of this opinion, addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim, is a dissent, joined by Judges BYBEE and IKUTA. Five of us, including Chief Judge KOZINSKI and Judges RYMER, HAWKINS, and McKEOWN, conclude that the plaintiffs have no standing, as set forth in Judge GRABER’s opinion. Three of us, including Judges THOMAS and CLIFTON, concur in the judgment, concluding that although the plaintiffs do have standing, their claim fails on the merits, as set forth in Judge SILVERMAN’s opinion.

The full opinion may be read here.

More on this later.

USF Guest: Scrap Celibacy; Vows Reinterpreted

On June 13, 2008 retired Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson appeared at the Jesuit University of San Francisco as part of his "Voice of the Faithful" tour. USF hosted him even though Archbishop George Niederauer (joined by Cardinal Roger Mahony and Bishop Tod Brown) refused him permission to speak in the Archdiocese.

Bishop Robinson has now chimed in on the abuse scandal, urging the Church to scrap the discipline of celibacy, and much more. His remarks about how some priests interpret their vows has also occasioned some comment.

From The Australian :

"There was also a view among some offenders with whom he had worked that a priest's celibacy vows weren't broken if a boy was involved.

"We've met it often enough to see it as a factor," he tells the magazine, out today. "That's what the vow of celibacy refers to, being married. If it's not an adult woman, then somehow they're not breaking their vow."

In other words, interpreting their vows to match their desired behavior. But is the Bishop right? While there is no evidence, beyong his word, about child-molesting priests doing this, there is actual hard evidence of "cutting to fit" in the Church.

The Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry does this exact thing. Right on their homepage they cherry-pick entry No. 2337 of the Catechism to read:

"Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being."

Left at that, it would condone any sexual behavior, provided the person was sincere. But the full entry of No. 2337, which CALGM does not include (for obvious reasons) reads:

"Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift."

So His Retired Excellency is pointing to a real problem.

Speaking of Jesuits, as we noted in an April 20 article in California Catholic Daily, Fr. Michael Zampelli, who has just been named Rector of the Jesuit Community at Santa Clara University, is Treasurer of the Catholic Association of Lesian and Gay Ministies.
____________________________________________________________

*For the origin of the "Gay Rome" tag, go here. It's at about 1:14 into this audio of USF's "Queer Perspectives" seminar, sponsored by the Lane Center, and held at (where else?) Most Holy Redeemer.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Vagina Monologues at USF: “One year the entire basketball team was forced to come"

As Valentine's Day rolls around, the USF College Players will once again engage in a performance of the Vagina Monologues. Not many Catholic Colleges perform the objectionable play any longer, but the Jesuit University of San Francisco still does.

The play's director Julianne Fawsitt described her experience with the play: “One year the entire basketball team was forced to come . . . . They all sat in the back awkwardly, but sometimes that’s the point, to make people feel uncomfortable.”

Contrast the ugliness of Ensler's play, and Fawsitt's attitude, with this beautiful observation made by Rebecca Ryskind Teti in Zenit:

"The vocation of woman is to reveal God's beauty to the world.

Woman is made to be beautiful. Our culture's emphasis on physical beauty is not wrong, but it is shallow, and often misdirected.

The deepest way a woman is beautiful is when she reveals to others their own goodness by teaching them the love God has for them. This is the 'feminine genius:' to reveal the goodness of the human person, and thus the beauty of God."

There's a subject for consideration at USF.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF Supervisors Table Vote on Church's $21 Million+ Tax Assessment

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors were scheduled to vote on the Transfer Tax Reassessment against the Archdiocese at 3:00 PM today, but the votes were tabled.

The Archdiocese is challenging the reassessment, which amounts to over $21 million, including penalties and taxes, on the grounds that it was just a shift of properties within the Archdiocesan umbrella--as I understand it, no new owners, nothing was sold.

But the city, which has a history of hostility toward the church, maintains otherwise. This case is being watched by nonprofits nationwide.

From todays meeting transcribed while I listened:

President David Chiu: "Supervisor Dufty, these are your items."

Supervisor Dufty then moved to table the items: " ..table these items while we await the report of the Transfer Tax Review Board. Wait for completion of the secondary report"

President Chiu then tabled the two items, numbers 39 & 40 on today's agenda.

So these are now "Supervisor Dufty's items." That makes sense. Our last post on this subject included transcripts and video of Supervisor's meetings that showed Dufty was amending the relevant law with the Church in mind.

We've point out before that Supervisor Dufty is a homoactivist politician, and one of the signatories of Resolution 168-06, which called the Church "hateful," etc. That resolution resulted in a lawsuit against the city by San Francisco Catholics, which is currently being heard in Federal Court. We point out again that he was the consultant to Catholic Charities in the disastrous adoptions "compromise" which resulted in Catholic Charities supplying funding/staffing to Family Builders by Adoption who were required by contract to "increasing the number of GLBT adoptions."

Hardly the man to take ownership of this issue if you think the Church deserves a fair hearing.

UPDATE: They may vote on this later today.

SF Hits Archdiocese for $7.3 Million More: But Was Law Changed with Church in Mind?

On Tuesday, January 26, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on the transfer-tax assessment levied by the city of San Francisco against the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Now, in addition to the $14.4 million in taxes, the city is gunning for a $5 million delinquent penalty and $2.3 million in interest. I don’t think there’s much doubt on the outcome, although the case will end up being decided in Federal Court. Background posts on the issue are here, and here.

I've been trying to get a copy of the report on the case from the Controller’s office for more than a month. Today, I learned that it was finally finished earlier this week, but is now being revised. The finalized report is scheduled to be released on Monday, January 25, one day before the Supervisors meeting/vote on January 26.

_________________________________________________________

I’ve always been struck by the coincidence that just as the dispute between the city and the Archdiocese was taking place, the relevant law was being modified by the Board of Supervisors.

A timeline:

April, 2008: the Archdiocese reorganized, and met with the Assessor’s office about the reorganization.

November 18, 2008: Ordinance 081450 is introduced. The Board of Supervisors’ synopsis reads:

“Real Property Transfer Tax - Change of delinquency date; substitution of references to current laws; conform partnership rule to state law changes; elimination of tax stamp provision and Transfer Tax Review Board]

Ordinance amending Sections 1106, 1108, 1108.4,1115, 1115.1 and 1115.3 and deleting Sections 1109, and 1115.2 of Business and Tax Regulations Code to (1) change delinquency date; (2) replace references to prior bankruptcy, income tax, with references to current laws; (3) conform rule for partnership interest transfers to state law changes; (4) eliminate regarding documentary tax stamps; and (5) eliminate Transfer Tax Board of Review and references to that Board. Supervisor presented.RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Government Audit and Oversight Committee.”

Ordinance 081450 then began its journey through the legislative process. From the minutes of the Supervisors’ meetings:

December 9, 2008: 081450 “Continued on first reading.” Vote: unanimous.

December 16, 2008: 081450 “Passed on First reading.” Voting “no”: Alioto-Pier, Chu, Dufty.

January 6, 2009: 081450 is item #22 on the agenda. San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ meetings are videotaped, and there are also published captions from the video. The video and captions are not always complete, however. Before the January 6 vote Supervisor Bevan Dufty spoke. Because there are no captions for this segment, a transcription from video is below. But readers should also watch the video by going here then scrolling down to 1/6/09, and selecting "video." The transcripted exchange begins at 13:10 into the video.

Supervisor Dufty--signatory to Resolution 168-06; welcomed speaker at Most Holy Redeemer Church; consultant to Catholic Charities during the Family Builders by Adoption fiasco; Chair of the Honorary Committee Honoring Nancy Pelosi at the Archdiocesan partner the San Francisco Organizing Project--is out for blood:

Supervisor Dufty: I wonder if the controller could maybe speak about what that process will be for them. Cause your office will be involved in any appeals prior to enacting this ordinance.

Controller: Existing law, Supervisor, provides for the appeals process to go to the Transfer Tax Review Board, which is a three-person body, that’s myself, the Treasurer, and the Director of Property for the City. So that’s the existing process that any existing appeals would proceed through if the appellant so desired and this process would remove that process going forward.

Dufty: Do you have any recollection or knowledge of the last time this process was invoked?

Controller: I believe there was one small appeal filed last year and that was the first appeal in many years.

Dufty: And I guess, do you mind stating for the record, I guess there is a major appeal which has been filed with the city which is the basis of these questions.

Controller: There is an appeal filed in the middle of December (2008) by the Catholic Church contesting the Assessor’s opinion that a recent transfer of their properties, of all their properties in San Francisco are subject to a transfer tax.

Dufty: And I guess I just want to state I did vote against this legislation and I will continue to do so. I am concerned about changing the process at this stage and feel for my purposes I would like further consideration and discussion of this given the significance of this particular case which I think is in the range of $3-15,000,000 to the city and so I am concerned about changing a process which has not been utilized for many years and all of a sudden there is a proposal to not only change the process but we have a pending case that I am encouraged to hear will be handled under the existing system.

January 6, 2009: 081450 “Finally Passed.” Voting “no”: Alioto-Pier, Campos, Chu, Dufty.

January 6, 2009: 081450 “Previous vote rescinded.” Voting “no”: Daly, Maxwell.

January 6, 2009: 081450 “Finally Passed.” Vote: unanimous

January 13, 2009: Ordinance 081450 comes before the Board of Supervisors again. Before the vote (Item 7 on the agenda) Supervisor Dufty addressed the Board. This meeting did have the the video captioning. Here it is, from sfgov.org, (with capitalization, etc. cleaned up):

Supervisor Dufty: Thank you, Mr. President. We had a meeting on Monday that Supervisor Elsbernd and myself participated in with the city assessor and the city attorney to talk about concerns that had come up with respect to this legislation. I'm anticipating that language is going to be delivered shortly from the city attorneys office that reflects the discussion there and an agreement to continue for a sunset period for four years the existing property transfer tax, appeal board mechanism with the city controller but recognizing the -- that claims with respect to property transfer tax disputes would be filed with the city attorney's office and understanding furthermore that in the event of discrepancies of 25,000 or more or disagreements that exceed 25,000, that those would be brought before the Board of Supervisors. So colleagues I recognize we have a short agenda but I wondered if perhaps we could defer this item and bring it up after roll call or public comment or at some point prior to the special order when the amendment is delivered.

At 1:25:56 in the video, Ordinance 081450 reappears.

Board President Chiu: Back to item 7, which has already been called, Supervisor Dufty I understand you have an amendment.

Supervisor Dufty: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. This has been distributed to our colleagues and I talked outside and asked the deputy city attorney to reflect for a moment and outline the changes made here and indicate again that these were discussed between the city attorney and the city assessor and they have come to agreement on these changes and that they would both support this legislation if amended. Deputy city attorneys Adams, would you like to walk us through.

City Attorney Adams: This proposed amendment has been prepared as a result of the discussions that you have described and the difference really in this document versus the prior document that is in your packet and before you last time is that the tax or transfer tax review board rather than being eliminated outright would be phased out so there would be a sunset and the tax board would remain operative until January1st of 2013 at which time it would then be eliminated.

Dufty: Also requires taxpayers who get a refund to record a document to show they paid a reduced property transfer tax.

I'd like to move this as an amendment. Motion, seconded by Supervisor Mirkarimi. Can we move this without objection? So moved.”

January 13, 2009: 081450 “Passed on First Reading as Amended.” Vote: unanimous.

January 27, 2009: 081450 “Finally Passed.” Vote: unanimous.

February 5, 2009: o81450 approved by Mayor Gavin Newsom

Ordinance 081450 as amended and finally passed can be read here. I leave it to lawyers to decipher how the amendments affect the Archdiocese’s case, but I don’t see how anyone can watch the video of the Supervisor in action without concluding that he amended Ordinance 081450 with the Church in mind.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

San Francisco Versus the Church UPDATE

Rick DelVecchio reports today in Catholic San Francisco in the Resolution 168-06 case. For those unaware, two San Francisco Catholics (Valerie Meehan and Richard Sonnenshein) are suing the City of San Francisco over the Board of Supervisors unaimous issuing of a March 21, 2006 resolution calling the Church "hateful," etc. The case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs are represented by the Thomas More Law Center.

From Mr. DeVecchio's report:

"In oral argument Dec. 16, San Francisco deputy city attorney Vince Chhabria said that the key question in determining the resolution’s constitutionality under the establishment clause is whether the city has a secular stake in stating its opinion on its own adoption policies.

Judge Sidney Thomas indicated that he was sympathetic with that view, noting that the city had a contract with Catholic Charities to place children with adoptive parents. "If we were to take the inflammatory language out, you still have a contract," he said.

Judge Andrew Kleinfeld was critical of the city's argument, cutting off Chhabria as the attorney began to state his position. “That seems like a very distorted approach,” Kleinfeld said. “Just speaking on a religious subject -- the Supreme Court has told us over and over again that all it takes is an indication of endorsement or counter-endorsement,” he said.

Chhabria responded that government may speak about a religious matter as long as the primary effect is not to become entangled with, or inhibit, religion.

“We don’t question plaintiffs’ assertion that they were disturbed by the resolution,” he said. “Many people are offended by ‘In God We Trust,’ but that doesn’t violate the establishment clause. What I think is mistaken is that being offended violates the establishment clause.”

Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the criticisms in the resolution taken together show a “level of insensitivity.” She asked Chhabria if the impact is not to effectively condemn the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Chhabria disagreed, saying the language was intended to express disagreement on a matter that had a significant impact on the well-being of San Franciscans. The supervisors spoke loudly because they were reacting to interference in a vital matter, he said.

Kleinfeld responded: “If I were Catholic, my guess is I would be really offended. I can’t accept the premise that it’s not directed at a particular church.”

Chief Judge Alex Kocinski then asked Chabbria: “The city is telling a religious organization how to practice its religion. Do you agree with me to some extent?”

Chhabria said he agreed.

“Is that permitted under the establishment clause?” the chief judge pressed.

Chhabria said he believes it is permissible under some circumstances.

Kocinski then asked, “How is it different than if the city told the synagogues to tell the Jews not to eat pork?”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney