California Defense of Marriage Update

Jerry Brown, Attorney General of the state of California, paid by the people of the state of California, is refusing to defend the expressed will of the people of the state of California.

From today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Brown now fights Prop. 8 in federal court
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, June 12,
2009

"Attorney General Jerry Brown, who tried to persuade the state Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage, took the same position in federal court Friday, saying Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality....

Two same-sex couples, represented by attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies -
the courtroom adversaries in the Bush vs. Gore case that decided the 2000
presidential election - challenged Prop. 8 in federal court on May 22, four days
before the state's high court upheld it....

Brown's refusal to support Prop. 8 means that the conservative Christian groups who sponsored Prop. 8 will defend it in federal court, as they did in the state Supreme Court."

That's fine, since the attorneys for the "Conservative Christian Groups" (53% of the population) did an excellent job before the California Supreme Court. I can't wait to see this case before the U.S. Supreme Court!

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

SF and the Church: More Evidence that We Are Right

There's another interesting article in this week's Catholic San Francisco. It deals with the issue we've been blogging about this week: San Francisco's attempt to impose a transfer tax on the Archdiocese following it's reorganization:

"Archdiocese challenges determination of San Francisco County Assessor/RecorderJune 10th, 2009

In a fight to preserve the freedom of religious organizations to restructure, the Archdiocese of San Francisco is contesting an attempt by the San Francisco County Assessor/Recorder to impose a property transfer tax on an internal reorganization involving Archdiocesan parish and school properties.

An administrative hearing to decide the issue will be held on June 16, 2009. The panel consists of the San Francisco Tax Collector, the Chief of Real Estate and Controller. The decision of the panel can be appealed, if necessary, to the civil courts."

The article then relates something we had not known:

"The same transfers at issue in San Francisco were made promptly without the imposition of a tax in both San Mateo and Marin counties more than a year ago...

(Archdiocesan attorney Jack) Hammel said, 'The San FranciscoAssessor/Recorder is alone among county recorders in taking such an extreme position.'"

As we wrote 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."

The Archdiocese of San Francisco covers three counties: San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin. The fact that only one one of the three counties has seen fit to try and impose new taxes on the Church seems to to support our argument.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

USF Prof: “Calling USF a Catholic school is like Saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite Nun"

The (Jesuit) University of San Francisco is on the cover of the June 12, 2009 "Catholic San Francisco" newpaper:

"USF honors dissenting South African bishop"
By Michael Vick"

The headline refers to the honoring of Bishop Kevin Dowling of South Africa, but the article itself brings overdue attention to USF's "Catholic character." "A Shepherd's Voice" first reported this story back on May, 3, 2009, when USF announced this year's commencement speakers, and we covered it again on May 23 and May 24, following the commencement exercises. There is not much in the article that will be news to our regular readers, but that it is being reported on the cover of the Archdiocesan newspaper is new, and welcome.

"Jesuit Father Stephen Privett, president of the University of San Francisco, stirred up controversy May 22 with his presentation of an honorary degree to a South African bishop who has defied the Vatican by promoting the use of condoms in some cases...."

"Bishop Dowling first drew public attention in 2001 when a reporter asked him his opinion on condom usage to fight HIV. His response drew the ire of the papal nuncio to South Africa and his own bishops' conference, though Bishop Dowling has received no official reprimand and continues to serve as bishop in good standing."

From the 2001 statement of Bishop Dowling that Mr. Vick is referring to:

"Abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in a marriage is beyond the realm of possibility here. The issue is to protect life. That must be our fundamental goal.' Drawing attention to the especially difficult plight of women in the traditionally male-dominated societies of his diocese he continued, 'My passion is for the women. I'm in that corner.' About the African people, he says, 'They must use condoms,' maintaining his stance despite the Vatican’s continued opposition to such a policy”. Emphasis added. That sounds like His Excellency does not have much faith in his flock.

When we heard Bishop Dowling was to be honored, we asked: "Dare we say that Bishop Dowling is being honored because of this position, not in spite of it?"

Lo and behold, when Lilian Dube, Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University introduced him she directly referred to his statement on condom use, and praised him for his "courageous stance." More from the CSF story:

"The university is no stranger to controversial speakers and events. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a vocal proponent of same-sex marriage, was its May 23 graduate commencement speaker.

And when Harris was introduced by Jeffrey S. Brand, the Dean of USF Law School, he said: "She represents the best of what this great University is all about."

In defending the University's actions, Fr. Privett said:

"The Jesuit said Catholic universities should provide the Church with a forum for changing society constructively through conversation.

'Catholic universities show the country a more engaging model of change than the defensive ‘We won't talk to anybody who doesn't agree with us' model,' Father Privett said. 'The gospel calls all of us to be a leaven in society. You can't leaven society if you stay in a drawer.'"

Standing alone, the first statement is true. That is what Catholic universities should do. But Fr. Privett is implying that that is what USF does. But If USF wanted to provide the Church with a forum for changing society, why is it a "Catholic" University with no graduate program in Theology? What they do is to provide society an opportunity to change the Church.

The second statement is a straw-man. The objection is not to USF's speaking and acting, but to the content of USF's speech and actions. As for avoiding the 'We won't talk to anybody who doesn't agree with us' model, why, whatever did happen to the Ignatius Institute?

Fr. Privett badly need some new material.

But at least one professor at USF has had just about enough:

"Others, including at least one USF professor, believe the school’s Catholic character has eroded under Father Privett’s leadership. Philosophy professor Raymond Dennehy said the dialogue Father Privett said he hopes to encourage is presented in a one-sided manner on campus, with most guest speakers dissenting against Church teaching.

“Dialogue is having speakers both pro and con,” Dennehy said. “This is giving an award, and you can bet your bottom dollar that (USF) would not do that if (the speaker) were anti-gay marriage.”

He's correct, and USF has had no trouble honoring those who are pro same-sex "marriage." The USF School of Law has twice honored the attorneys who brought the case which overturned Proposition 22 back in June 2008--and which has resulted in 18,000 counterfeit "marriages" being recognized by the state of California.

"Dennehy said the university has set out to form a Catholic identity separate from the Church’s teaching on issues like abortion and homosexuality, citing examples like the invitation of Pelosi and the appointment to head of campus ministry of Jesuit Father Donal Godfrey, an outspoken proponent of gay-friendly theology."

Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ Executive Director of Campus Ministry at USF,
attending the 2003 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade. (photo courtesy Most Holy Redeemer Parish website)

Professor Dennehy continued:

“Calling USF a Catholic school is like saying Hillary Clinton is a Carmelite nun,” Dennehy said. “USF has chosen to go its own way, and there is no one here to stop them. What is Catholic teaching? What is the so-called ‘institutional Church’"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"Offensive Beyond Belief"

So says Dr. Alveda King:

"Comparing Abortionist’s Murder to MLK's Assassination ‘Offensive Beyond Belief,’ Dr. King’s Niece SaysTuesday, June 09, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar

(CNSNews.com) – The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on Tuesday condemned the remarks of late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart in comparing the recent murder of abortionist George Tiller to King’s assassination....

"For LeRoy Carhart to mention the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who worked through peaceful and non-violent means, in the same breath with that of George Tiller, whose work ended peace and brought violence to babies in the womb, is offensive beyond belief," Dr. Alveda King, pastoral associate of Priests for Life, said in a statement. "The analogy is just wrong."

"Dr. Carhart also speaks of hate crimes," added Dr. King. "I would simply ask him, is it not hateful to regard an entire class of people as non-human because they're unwanted?"

"The message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was that every human being has equal dignity. LeRoy Carhart and every other abortionist violate that message every time they dismember a baby. The comparison is ridiculous," Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said in a statement.

h/t Mark Shea.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

NewYork Bishops on Same-Sex "Marriage"

"We Stand Unified in Our Strong Opposition"NEW YORK, JUNE 9, 2009 (Zenit.org).-

Here is the statement the bishops of New York released June 1 on the proposed law that would legalize same-sex "marriage" in the state of New York.* * *We face today the prospect of a law in New York which would radically change the timeless institution of marriage. As pastors of citizens from every corner of our great state, we stand unified in our strong opposition to such a drastic measure.

Throughout history, different cultures have had different customs regarding marriage. But the one constant has been the conviction that marriage is the union of a man and a woman in an enduring bond, ordered for the procreation and stable rearing of children. Regrettably, the state Assembly has voted to redefine what nature and our common heritage long ago defined for us. We fervently pray that members of the state Senate will stand firm in opposition to this ill-advised legislation, and we call on Catholics and all New Yorkers to contact their Senators to make their voices heard.

Our opposition to this bill is based not only on Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage. Just as importantly, it is based on reason, sound public policy, and plain common sense, as we stated in our 2008 pastoral statement on same-sex “marriage.” To briefly reiterate, the state has a compelling legal interest in promoting marriage between men and women in order to create stable families and provide for the safety, health and well being of children. The state has no such compelling legal interest in recognizing a relationship between two people of the same sex.If there are injustices against those in relationships other than marriage, those injustices can certainly be reformed and corrected in a way other than by drastically redefining marriage.

We close with a final point from our 2008 statement:"We want to make absolutely clear that our firm beliefs about marriage ... must not be misconstrued to be in any way a condemnation of homosexual people or an attack on their human dignity. Our Church teaches, and we affirm, that we must treat our homosexual sisters and brothers with dignity and love, as we would all God’s children. Indeed the Catechism of the Catholic Church warns that any form of prejudice or hatred – 'every sign of unjust discrimination' -- against homosexual people should be avoided" (CCC 2358).

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

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

Defense of Marriage Updates

In New Hampshire this week, the same-sex "marriage" actvists maintained their perfect record: zero victories whenever the people have a chance to have their say. They only win when they can bring a lot of pressure on a small number of people, like a legislature, or when a judge rules in their favor.


Meanwhile in California, the Bay Area Reporter and the San Francisco Bay Times (both are gay targeted publications) had stories on last weekend's "Equality Leadership Summit," which included the reults of the "Poll for Equality." From the BAR:


"Press kicked out of summit over poll"
by Cynthia Laird


"Reporters were ordered to leave last Sunday's equality leadership summit in Fresno during a discussion of recent polling data after meeting organizers, and groups that paid for the poll, expressed fears that the "sensitive" information would provide ammunition to opponents of same-sex marriage.

An examination of the poll, a copy of which was leaked to reporters, shows that indeed, marriage equality supporters have a tough road ahead as they prepare for a ballot measure to repeal Proposition 8, which eliminated same-sex marriage after 52 percent of California voters approved it last November."

And from the SF Bay Times:

"Poll 4 Equality Says There’s No Change in California’s Support for Same Sex Marriage Since November"
By Kim Corsaro

"At a cost of $85,000 a broad coalition of faith, civil rights, labor and LGBT groups banded together earlier this year to commission a private poll to determine how Californians feel about another ballot battle on the issue of same-sex marriage, and when best that battle should take place: 2010 or 2012. The poll, conducted in the week before the Supreme Court released their decision upholding Prop 8, was entitled “Poll 4 Equality” and was conducted by David Binder of Binder Research and Amy R. Simon of Goodwin Simon Victoria Research.....

On the face of it, the poll is somewhat discouraging. It indicates that there really hasn’t been much of a shift in voter opinion since the November 2008 election. The margins remain steady at 2-4 points against same sex marriage, pretty much no matter how the question is asked. All of the fears voters expressed around their religious freedom being trampled and their children being educated that gay marriage is OK ring out loud and clear in all the poll results."

Polls are irrelevant--but we know our opponents will be extremely well funded, and that they get unlimited free advertising in the media. The SF Bay Times author admitted as much:

"The only real education that has been done on our behalf has been in the media. That’s why younger voters are so heavily in favor of same sex marriage; they’ve gotten to know us through Hollywood."

_____________________________________________________________

From the pro-marriage side, we received an email from Bill May, of Catholics for the Common Good:

"A statewide effort to repeal California Prop 8 was launched last weekend by traditional marriage opponents.

To date, Catholics for the Common Good is the only organization that has started training and deploying volunteer leaders in what will become a huge public educational effort to regain the offense on marriage and the family. The first Southern California training has already been held, and has generated much excitement and confidence among participants. Others are planned around the state including Fresno and the Bay Area tentatively scheduled for July 25 and August 1 respectively.Yet we are struggling to pay our rent. Last month, for the first time, we fell short of meeting our obligations. We have since covered them, but to continue operations, we need to raise at least $20,000 by the end of the June, and for every month thereafter."

"Please make a tax-deductible donation today!"

You can go to http://www.ccgaction.org/donate/CCGIdonation to donate online.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"We have a Vatican II president."

That's how Fr. John O'Malley's latest in the Jesuit Magazine "America" opens.

The article also contains these sentences:

"I often hear laments that the spirit of Vatican II is dead in the church. Is it not ironic that not a bishop but the President of the United States should today be the most effective spokesperson for that spirit?"

I myself know almost nothing about Vatican II, but it's possible that what is dead is not the "spirit of Vatican II", but a particular interpretation of that spirit.

But if it is true that a non-Catholic supporter of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and Embryonic Stem-Cell Research, who just declared June to be "National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Month" is the most effective spokesperson for the "spirit of Vatican II", its death is certainly nothing to mourn.

Diogenes and Father Z have weighed in on this.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Common Ground With Theorists of Murder? Part II

From today's Los Angeles Times comes a story about the reduced possibility for "common ground" on abortion following the murder of Dr. Tiller.

"Doctor's slaying a setback for common ground on abortion"

"The Obama administration had begun bringing both sides together for discussions. Now emotions are raw, and any agreement looks less likely than ever."

We repeat what we said in our post of November 22, 2008:

"There is no common ground possible with a person who believes it is acceptable behavior to murder another person, until they renounce that position. The position itself precludes common ground, because it is a denial of common humanity. That's what being 'pro-choice' on abortion means--it's a denial of common humanity."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Crackpot President Declares June to be "National LGBT Pride Month"

From the Catholic News Agency:

"President Obama declares June ‘LGBT Pride Month’"

"Washington D.C., Jun 2, 2009 / 05:28 pm (CNA).- In a Monday proclamation, President Barack Obama declared June 2009 to be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month, outlining his plan to advance homosexual political concerns."

We know all about LGBT Pride in San Francisco. Can one imagine this expression of "pride" at the St. Patrick's Day Parade, or on Martin Luther King Day, or at the Chinese New Year's parade, or on Columbus Day?



The picture is from San Francisco's 2008 "Pride" parade, censored for this website. Sorry if anyone is offended. These men are in the very center of the city--the corner of First and Market Street--that's the "LGBT Pride" President Obama is talking about.

At the same parade, San Francisco firefighter Sabine Balden participated. She was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle "I'm perfectly happy to be riding topless in the parade. That's what gay pride is all about.”

It's not harmless. Some other things that ought to be mentioned:

According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s HIV/AIDS Annual Epidemiology Report for the year 2006, there were more than 19 times as many cases of syphilis among men having "sex" with men as there were among the entire rest of the city's population combined. And that's from a group that is only 8.3% of the city's population.

Or this: According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s HIV/AIDS Annual Epidemiology Report for the year 2006, since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, through December 31, 2006, 18,232 San Franciscans with AIDS have died. Of those, 16,538 (nearly 91%) were men who engaged in "sex" with other men.

Or this: in San Francisco the tolerance of the celebration of homosexuality, in the name of "equality," has so corrupted the city that in 2008 "Leather Pride" flags were flown on city flagpoles and street lamps.

Photo courtesy Michael Petrelis.

"Leather Pride" flags are the emblem of those who define themselves by their "leather" (that is sado-masochistic) sexuality. Will we one day see the proclamation of a "National Leather Pride" month? And if not, why not?

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Thousands of Californians Rally in Support of Proposition 8

On Pentecost Sunday, the good people of the Central Valley stood up for natural marriage.

From the Fresno Bee:

"Thousands in Fresno mark Prop. 8 success
Published online on Sunday, May. 31, 2009
By Bethany Clough / The Fresno Bee

"A day after backers of same-sex marriage rallied in front of Fresno City Hall, about 3,000 people gathered in the same place Sunday evening to support the traditional definition of marriage.

And our friend Bill May was there, pointing out that the defense of natural marriage equals the defense of the common good:

"We know marriage is a part of God's creation," said Bill May, with Catholics for the Common Good, an activist group that promotes Catholic social tradition in the public arena. "Traditional marriage is not something that society created. ... Marriage originated society."