Archbishop Niederauer's San Francisco Chronicle Column

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle published this "Open Forum" piece by  His Excellency George Niederauer, Archbishop of San Francisco.

"It's about the tea," British newspapers proclaimed in 1774 as Parliament passed a bill to close Boston Harbor until the citizens of Massachusetts reimbursed the East India Company for the tea that had been thrown into the bay by American patriots. "It's all about the tea."

Of course it wasn't about the tea at all. It was about a fundamental diminishment of liberty that had led the American colonists to refuse to comply with a law that breached the freedom which was theirs by right.

I thought of this episode from our nation's history during the debate that we have been having across the United States during the past two weeks about the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' newly imposed mandate on health care for religious hospitals, universities and charitable services. It has become commonplace to dismiss the questions that have arisen as merely revolving around contraception. In the process, immensely deep questions of fundamental liberty are being shoved aside.

Embedded in the seemingly innocuous new federal regulations pertaining to contraception is a radically new and sharply diminished approach to how government will define religious liberty in the future. Only those religious institutions that center directly upon the inculcation of faith, and which employ and serve predominantly members of that faith, are to be seen as fully religious institutions. Other religious institutions, which always in the past have been seen as religious employers by the federal government, are now labeled only marginally religious and given a sharply lesser degree of religious freedom.

The consequences for the religious landscape of our nation, and the architecture of religious liberty in the United States, are enormous and immensely troubling. It is a basic tenet not only of Catholic faith, but of most religious communities, that religiously organized service to the poor, the sick, the marginalized and the outcast is to be undertaken precisely as an act of faith. This religious mandate to serve those in need, regardless of the religious beliefs of those who are served, has been the foundation for the only real safety net that existed during most of our nation's history.

Now the very belief of religious communities that their faith compels them to reach out with care and consolation is cast as an obstacle to receiving the full measure of religious liberty in the United States.

The hospitals, homeless shelters, colleges, dining rooms for the poor, counseling clinics and senior centers operated by the religious communities across the nation are experiencing a dramatic reduction of their religious freedom, because of a small clause in health guidelines that promises to be the launching point for erecting a two-tier notion of religious freedom within the federal bureaucracy.

Not far into the future, this new notion of religious liberty could easily be used to require Catholic hospitals that serve Catholics and non-Catholics alike to perform abortions, i.e., to "offer a full range of reproductive services."

By way of contrast, here's one early instance of this country's great tradition of religious liberty in action: In 1804, as a result of the Louisiana Purchase, New Orleans, formerly governed by the French Empire, passed to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Sister Marie Therese Farjon of the Ursuline order of sisters, serving in New Orleans, wrote to President Thomas Jefferson to ask whether the sisters' property and ministries would be secure under the new government.

In a remarkable letter, President Jefferson, the author of the doctrine of separation of church and state, replied: "The principles of the Constitution and the government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you sacred and inviolate and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules without interference from the civil authorities. I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship and respect. Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States."

Apparently the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is convinced that it has found a better interpretation of religious liberty than Thomas Jefferson. I respectfully disagree.

The issue of contraception is extremely important in American society. There are frameworks though which the government's desire to make contraceptives widely available and affordable, and the Catholic Church's desire not to be involved in supplying contraceptives that conflict with Catholic faith, can both be accomplished.

So, the core disagreement is not about contraception, but about religious liberty.

Again, it's not about the tea.

"Let the Church Say: AMEN!"

Fantastic homily on Obamacare, Obama and his violation of the Constitution, by Fr. Sammie Malleta, Jr, of St. John the Evangelist Church. He claims his right to speak as an American Citizen and his a resposibility to speak as a Priest of God.

Obama and Infanticide

From LifeSiteNews:

"At the last Republican presidential debate before voters in Michigan and Arizona cast their votes, Newt Gingrich labeled Barack Obama the real abortion “extremist” because of his opposition to a bill that would have required doctors to care for babies who were born alive after failed abortions - a vote Gingrich said condoned “infanticide.”

The audience booed CNN moderator John King at Wednesday night’s debate in Mesa, Arizona, when he asked if each candidate “believes in birth control.”


The former House speaker, who has a habit of reformulating questions during debates, told King, “I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign—not once did anybody in the elite media—ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”


He referred to Obama’s votes as a state senator to oppose the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, exposed abortionists’ practice of abandoning babies born alive after failed abortions, leaving them to die in a hospital utility room. Ultimately, Obama gave 10 different reasons for voting against the bill — from protests that it would undercut Roe v. Wade to allegations that Stanek and others lied under oath."

Good for Mr. Gingrich. We, and everyone else with an ounce of common decency, have brought up that monster's opposition to the the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act many times. The indecent mainstream media, who claim to want "healthcare for everyone" did not give a damn when babies were left to die in Illinois. Apparently Rush Limbaugh picked up Gingrich's answer and gave it a lot of play on the radio. God bless you, Mr. Limbaugh!

Everything that is Wrong With The Archdiocese of San Francisco

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

Photo credit: Bill Wilson, Bay Area Reporter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolution 168-06 was a foretaste of the current HHS Mandate. It resulted in a lawsuit by faithful San Francisco Catholics, which made its way through the courts, although the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it. The suit’s last stop was the Ninth Circuit, where Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in dissent: “The 'message' in the resolution, unlike, say, the message that might be inferred from some symbolic display, is explicit: a Catholic doctrine duly communicated by the part of the Catholic church in charge of clarifying doctrine is 'hateful,' 'defamatory,' 'insulting,' 'callous,' and 'discriminatory,' 'showing 'insensitivity and ignorance,' the Catholic Church is a hateful foreign meddler in San Francisco’s affairs, the Catholic Church ought to 'withdraw' its religious directive, and the local archbishop should defy his superior’s directive. This is indeed a 'message of . . . disapproval.' And that is all it takes for it to be unconstitutional.”

Law Professor Jonathon Turley, although he personally agrees with the city’s adoptions policy, noted the same thing: “The resolution has the Board directly calling on Catholic leaders to defy the Cardinal and directly objects to the Vatican policy. That would seem to take an 'official position on religious doctrine.’”

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

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

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

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

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free Condoms and STD Rates

State of California Offer Free Mail Order Condoms.
Despite Free Condoms in SF Schools, STD Rates Continue to Rise.

On February 18, the San Francisco Chronicle reported “Teenagers in several counties can get condoms in the mail for free under a program launched this week and supported by state public health officials. The Condom Access Project allows youth between the ages of 12 and 19 to order a package of 10 condoms, lube and health brochures online at TeenSource.org, a website run by the nonprofit California Family Health Council.”

The article reported that the program will be available in Kern, Alameda, Sacramento and San Joaquin counties as well as parts of San Francisco. The inclusion of San Francisco would seem to be redundant. Free condoms have been available in San Francisco public schools since at least 1992. The 2009-2010 “Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook” issued by the San Francisco Unified School District includes the entry:

“High school students can secure condoms from licensed health care professionals or agencies at their school sites supported by health education. As part of the condom availability program, students receive information stressing abstinence as the safest method of preventing sexually transmitted disease, HIV infection, and pregnancy. Several community agencies which offer classroom presentations that address topics related to sexuality have been approved to give classroom presentations in San Francisco for elementary grades, middle school and high school.”

The “stressing of abstinence” is questionable. Another San Francisco Chronicle article, dated February 16, 2012, reported: “Galileo High School celebrated Valentine's Day in a style befitting San Francisco on Tuesday as hundreds of students lined up to "marry" their sweethearts regardless of gender, sexual orientation or relationship status. They then learned how to correctly put on a condom using goggles that gave them a drunken view of things, and played a variety of games that promoted safer sex….At one table, health teacher Raina Meyers put goggles on students that made their vision slightly blurry, simulating a drunken state. She then told them to put a condom on a wooden penis.” The article also reported “Many students admitted they decided to participate after teachers said they would get extra credit.”

Ironically, the articles coincided with the release of preliminary data on the incidence of venereal diseases in the city and county of San Francisco for calendar year 2011. Despite the ubiquitous availability of free condoms, venereal diseases in San Francisco continue to increase. The report, issued by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said: “Preliminary data on reported STDs shows increases for chlamydia, gonorrhea and early syphilis in 2011.” Detailed results were given: “Overall, reported chlamydia increased from 4,603 to 4,741 cases (3.0%) while male rectal chlamydia increased in 2011 from 914 to 959 cases for a 4.9% annual increase. Reported gonorrhea cases increased 15.4% from 1,943 in 2010 to 2,243 in 2011. Additionally, rectal gonorrhea among men also increased from 479 cases to 622 cases—a 38.2% increase. After declines in early syphilis seen in 2008, early syphilis continues to increase. In 2011, reported early syphilis increased by 3.5% from 659 cases to 682.”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

More SF Obama/HHS Protest Coverage

Our brothers and sisters at Bay Area Patriots, the local Tea Party group are getting lots of coverage for the Thursday protest. Because we were mixed in with them, we get coverage too!

Check these out, courtesy of The City Square; (more at the link, click for a larger image):

What is Sister texting?
"Barry, I'm very disappointed in you" ?

More at Gateway Pundit,  Fund 47, Weeping Eagle, Melanie Morgan

Nancy, the Theologian

When religious leaders told a House panel Thursday the Obama administration was violating basic rights to religious freedom with its policies for requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to birth control. Nancy Pelosi remarked: "The Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on women's health and purposely exclude women from the panel, I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues."

Yes, Nancy,, you may explain biology, if you wish to do the "school teacher", but please stay out of religious doctrine, of which you seem to know so little.

HHS/Obama Protest: Fr. Peter Carota Interviewed on Univision

Bless him! In Spanish. You can watch him here.

HHS Protest: "What’s going to be next? Will it be freedom of the press?"

That's the question Dolores Meehan asked an ABC reporter who had asked Dolores why she was protesting Obama's unconscionable and unconstitutional HHS mandate. We contributed to this story, published in this morning's California Catholic Daily:

Singing hymns, praying the rosary and waving Vatican flagsCatholics protest President Obama’s contraception mandate during his visit to San Francisco

Around 150 Catholics prayed the rosary, sang the Ave Maria and We Shall Overcome, waved Vatican flags, and stood for religious freedom and the Constitution in San Francisco last night, a city that cast more than 85% of its votes for President Obama in 2008. One young man climbed a tree and waved an American flag surmounted by a banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

The impromptu protest came with only three days advance notice that President Obama would be in the city for a campaign fundraising event. Earlier Thursday, the president attended a $35,800 per plate dinner in Pacific Heights, the city’s “Billionaire’s Row.” The San Francisco event was a more modest $100 per person affair at the Masonic Auditorium atop Nob Hill.

Catholics -- and others – gathered across the street to protest the recently announced Obama Administration’s HHS contraception mandate, which has drawn nearly universal protest from U.S. bishops.

No bishops were able to attend the protest because all the bishops of the San Francisco province, which includes the dioceses of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Santa Rosa, Stockton, Sacramento, Reno, Salt Lake City, and Hawaii, were on a retreat together this week.

Oakland Bishop Salvatore Cordileone sent a message of support, and assured organizers he would have been there, had it been possible.

Among the Catholic leaders who participated in the protest were Dominican Fr. Anselm Ramelow, chairman of the Philosophy Department at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley; Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, editor of San Francisco-based Ignatius Press; and Fr. Peter Carota, who led a group of parishioners all the way from St. Patrick’s Church in Ripon. Fr. Carota said he had heard about the rally in California Catholic Daily.

Dolores Meehan and Eva Muntean, co-founders of the Walk for Life West Coast, were also there. Many members of the Walk for Life volunteer team joined them. A number of 40 Days for Life volunteers were there too.

Also participating was Protestant Pastor Walter Hoye, well known in California pro-life circles for being unjustly imprisoned for violating Oakland’s abortion clinic “bubble ordinance” -- a conviction later overturned on appeal.

All the local affiliates of the major TV networks were also there. Many protestors were interviewed for both radio and television, including Pastor Hoye, Meehan and Muntean. Fr. Carota was interviewed by the Spanish-language TV network Univision, though little, at least thus far, has been broadcast.

All expressed outrage. In one segment that aired on ABC7News, Meehan responded to a reporter’s question by asking the reporter a question of her own: “Freedom of religion is the flavor of the day for him today, but what’s going to be next? Will it be freedom of the press? Are you going to be able to be out here and say what you want to say?”

More Obama HHS SF Protest Photos

Click on any image for a larger version.

The folks holding the red "NoBama" fingers are members of the "Bay Area Patriots"--the local Tea Party affiliate.

Walk for Life West Coast co-founder Eva Muntean joined the young man up in the tree!

That's where she got this shot of the other protestors. Up the street a little were the legal marijuana advocates. They were having a little "tea party" of their own...

More banners and flags.

Security was of course very tight. The Tea Partiers had one great chant:  "We love the cops! We love the cops!"

Viva Cristo Rey!

Me with one of John Herreid's great signs.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

First Photos and Video From San Francisco HHS/Obama Protest

Tonight's protest of Obama and his shredding religious liberty and the First Amendment was great! About 150 people attended, which is OK given the short notice--we only learned about his visit on Monday. We are across the street from San Francisco's Masonic Auditorium, where Obama was speaking. Click on any picture for a larger image.

Vatican flags in the streets of San Francisco!

You can see Fr. Joe Fessio, SJ and Fr. Anselm Ramelow, OP in this picture:

We were interspersed with members of the Tea Party:

This young fellow climbed a tree with an American flag and a banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe:

And here's some ABC video of tonight's Obama/ HHS protest. Mostly it is not about us, but at about 1:04 minutes in, Dolores Meehan does a great job of refocusing a reporter's attention as to what Obama's repudiation of the First Amendment means: