Sounds about right.
A couple of points that were not mentioned in this morning's California Catholic Daily story about the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco's honoring of Sr. Carol Keehan:
This is the first event sponsored by USF's Department of Campus Ministry since Julia Dowd took over as Acting Director, following the departure of Father Donal Godfrey. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Dowd had served as the Associate Director at USF's Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought. The Lane Center, of course, has a long history of inviting pro-abortion speakers, including Professor Sylvia Marcos; Amnesty International's Irene Khan; the Rev. Ignacio Castuera, President of the Clergy Network of Planned Parenthood and the Rev. Lisa Sargent, Chaplain of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate.
At USF, hosting pro-abortion speakers is the norm, and when they do deign to notice the Catholic position, the bias is obvious. The 2009 fall session catalog at the University’s Fromm Center for Lifelong Learning includes a class by Professor Bernice Goldmark “Hate Groups in the US.” The catalog describes such “hate groups”:
“While the course isn’t exactly “entertainment,” the stories (such as those of the white supremacy, anti-gay/lesbian, anti-abortion groups, among others — and the anti-Hate groups) tell of audacious and grim activities of villains, and courageous and creative reactions of the heroes who oppose them.”
Showing posts with label or: Notes from "the gay Rome". Show all posts
Showing posts with label or: Notes from "the gay Rome". Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Monday, June 8, 2009
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
"...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
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Too Toxic for MHR--OK For USF?
Well, well. It's too toxic for MHR (or maybe vice versa) but just right for USF.
We believe that the play "Be Still and Know," an adaption of the book "The God Box" by homosexual activist Alex Sanchez, will be performed at the Presentation Theater of the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco today. We went by there and saw a flyer advertising the event.
It had originally been scheduled to be performed at Most Holy Redeemer Church, but the parish cancelled it on orders from the Archdiocese. Our detailed post on the play can be found by going here. This begs a number of questions:
1) Did the Archdiocese approve this change of venue or not?
If yes, why? Why is it acceptable to stage a performance of the play at USF, but not at Most Holy Redeemer? Is there something about MHR that would make the play unnacceptable there?
Two possibilities suggest themselves:
a) The Archdiocese is pastorally concerned about kids from a Catholic High School performing at Most Holy Redeemer. They do not want students exposed to an environment where there is such a wholesale and blatant repudiation of Church teaching on sexuality--a repudiation which includes, but is not limited to having openly same-sex "married" and "transgendered" Eucharistic minsters, lectors, and acolytes serving at Mass. This would make sense.
b) The Archdiocese is pastorally concerned about the parishioners of MHR. They worry that a play challenging Church teaching on homosexuality presented at MHR is an occasion of sin-- like giving a bottle of liquor to an alcoholic. It may sound funny at first to anyone familiar with the history of MHR--that a high school play could be a bad influence there--but it is no joke. Our Archdiocese knows full well that anything that affrms the parishioners of MHR in their repudiation of Church teaching on sexuality must be avoided. As Catechism entry #2357 says of homosexual acts: "Under no circumstances can they be approved." On this reading, our Archdiocese is being guided by the maxim that the souls of our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters are just as important as anyone else, and that it is the duty of the Archdiocese to protect them. This also would make sense.
I think probably both of these played a part in the Archdiocesan decision to cancel the play at MHR. I'd encourage the Catholic parents of Sacred Heart of Atherton to think about both of these things.
_________________________________________________
But this leads to a further question. If there is something so unsuitable about MHR, because of it's repudiation of Church teaching on sexuality, how can USF be suitable? For on this issue USF is on the same page as MHR (a quick sample, it would take far too much space to into detail) :
• The Executive Director of University Ministry at USF, Fr. Donal Godfrey wrote the very enlightening history of MHR "Gays and Grays" (excerpts here) ; he has given homilies at MHR which are posted on the "Gay Catholic Forum" ; he has come out publicly against Proposition 8; he has marched, in his clerics, in the "Gay Pride" parade. Too get an idea of how far out Fr. Godfrey is on matters of sexuality, listen to this radio interview he gave last year at World Youth Day in Australia.
• USF and MHR co-hosted the "Queer Perspectives: Is it Ethical to Be Catholic?" seminars. Listen to the audio here and here.
• The Department of Theology and Religious Studies at USF employs the Reverend Vincent Pizzuto as an Assistant Professor (you can hear him on the first audio cllip in the preceding paragraph). The Reverend Pizzuto so disagreed with Catholic teaching on homosexuality that he left the Catholic Church in 2007 and was ordained into the "Celtic Christian Church." The Celtic Christian Church is not in communion with Rome. I actually have a certain amount of admiration for Father Pizzuto. He says what he believes, and if he can't accept Catholic teaching, he leaves the Church. Of course that means Canonically he is not allowed to teach at a Theology department in a Catholic school, but that is not his fault, but the fault of those responsible at USF.
• Tomorrow, May 9, 2009, USF's Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Research, and the USF LGBT Caucus will sponsor an address by Professor James Nickoloff. We covered the event, and did some resarch on Professor Nickoloff back in January. The post is here.
_______________________________________________________
2) The other possibility is that USF is allowing this play to be performed on campus without Archdiocesan approval. This would certainly not be surprising, because it would not be the first time that the University basically told His Excellency: drop dead.
Back on June 7, 2008, we reported on the book tour of Australian former Auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson. Robinson's teachings were so at variance with those of the Church that the Vatican asked him to cancel the tour. He didn't, and before he reached California a number of California Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Niederauer, specifically and in writing denied him permission to speak in their Archdioceses. What did USF do? They ignored the instructions of His Excellency, and invited Robinson to speak at the University's notorious Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought.
It's an unfortunate fact that what goes on at “Catholic” Universities nowadays is, to a great extent, out of Archdiocesan control. I believe all that can be done by the local ordinary is to strip the university of its Catholic identity.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
We believe that the play "Be Still and Know," an adaption of the book "The God Box" by homosexual activist Alex Sanchez, will be performed at the Presentation Theater of the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco today. We went by there and saw a flyer advertising the event.
It had originally been scheduled to be performed at Most Holy Redeemer Church, but the parish cancelled it on orders from the Archdiocese. Our detailed post on the play can be found by going here. This begs a number of questions:
1) Did the Archdiocese approve this change of venue or not?
If yes, why? Why is it acceptable to stage a performance of the play at USF, but not at Most Holy Redeemer? Is there something about MHR that would make the play unnacceptable there?
Two possibilities suggest themselves:
a) The Archdiocese is pastorally concerned about kids from a Catholic High School performing at Most Holy Redeemer. They do not want students exposed to an environment where there is such a wholesale and blatant repudiation of Church teaching on sexuality--a repudiation which includes, but is not limited to having openly same-sex "married" and "transgendered" Eucharistic minsters, lectors, and acolytes serving at Mass. This would make sense.
b) The Archdiocese is pastorally concerned about the parishioners of MHR. They worry that a play challenging Church teaching on homosexuality presented at MHR is an occasion of sin-- like giving a bottle of liquor to an alcoholic. It may sound funny at first to anyone familiar with the history of MHR--that a high school play could be a bad influence there--but it is no joke. Our Archdiocese knows full well that anything that affrms the parishioners of MHR in their repudiation of Church teaching on sexuality must be avoided. As Catechism entry #2357 says of homosexual acts: "Under no circumstances can they be approved." On this reading, our Archdiocese is being guided by the maxim that the souls of our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters are just as important as anyone else, and that it is the duty of the Archdiocese to protect them. This also would make sense.
I think probably both of these played a part in the Archdiocesan decision to cancel the play at MHR. I'd encourage the Catholic parents of Sacred Heart of Atherton to think about both of these things.
_________________________________________________
But this leads to a further question. If there is something so unsuitable about MHR, because of it's repudiation of Church teaching on sexuality, how can USF be suitable? For on this issue USF is on the same page as MHR (a quick sample, it would take far too much space to into detail) :
• The Executive Director of University Ministry at USF, Fr. Donal Godfrey wrote the very enlightening history of MHR "Gays and Grays" (excerpts here) ; he has given homilies at MHR which are posted on the "Gay Catholic Forum" ; he has come out publicly against Proposition 8; he has marched, in his clerics, in the "Gay Pride" parade. Too get an idea of how far out Fr. Godfrey is on matters of sexuality, listen to this radio interview he gave last year at World Youth Day in Australia.
• USF and MHR co-hosted the "Queer Perspectives: Is it Ethical to Be Catholic?" seminars. Listen to the audio here and here.
• The Department of Theology and Religious Studies at USF employs the Reverend Vincent Pizzuto as an Assistant Professor (you can hear him on the first audio cllip in the preceding paragraph). The Reverend Pizzuto so disagreed with Catholic teaching on homosexuality that he left the Catholic Church in 2007 and was ordained into the "Celtic Christian Church." The Celtic Christian Church is not in communion with Rome. I actually have a certain amount of admiration for Father Pizzuto. He says what he believes, and if he can't accept Catholic teaching, he leaves the Church. Of course that means Canonically he is not allowed to teach at a Theology department in a Catholic school, but that is not his fault, but the fault of those responsible at USF.
• Tomorrow, May 9, 2009, USF's Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Research, and the USF LGBT Caucus will sponsor an address by Professor James Nickoloff. We covered the event, and did some resarch on Professor Nickoloff back in January. The post is here.
_______________________________________________________
2) The other possibility is that USF is allowing this play to be performed on campus without Archdiocesan approval. This would certainly not be surprising, because it would not be the first time that the University basically told His Excellency: drop dead.
Back on June 7, 2008, we reported on the book tour of Australian former Auxiliary Bishop Geoffrey Robinson. Robinson's teachings were so at variance with those of the Church that the Vatican asked him to cancel the tour. He didn't, and before he reached California a number of California Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Niederauer, specifically and in writing denied him permission to speak in their Archdioceses. What did USF do? They ignored the instructions of His Excellency, and invited Robinson to speak at the University's notorious Lane Center for Catholic Studies and Social Thought.
It's an unfortunate fact that what goes on at “Catholic” Universities nowadays is, to a great extent, out of Archdiocesan control. I believe all that can be done by the local ordinary is to strip the university of its Catholic identity.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 11, 2008
God Bless our Bishops...
Very nice to see the US Catholic Bishop's Committee on Doctrine moving their conference away from the University of Notre Dame in protest of the University's presentation of the notorious "Vagina Monologues." The full story is here.One hopes the Bishops Committee's action will inspire their brother Bishops across the country. Unfortunately, right here in San Francisco, or in what our friends over at USF refer to as "the gay Rome"* the "Vagina Monologues" was presented this past Thursday, Friday, and Saturday at, you guessed it, the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.
*For the origin of "the gay Rome" tag, listen to this q & a from the USF "Queer Perspectives" seminar, held at, where else, Most Holy Redeemer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
