Archbishop of San Francisco under fire

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cornbread_r2 said:
I was going by the OP’s linked article.

Following his installation as the religious leader of more than 500,000 Catholics in the largely gay-friendly Bay Area, Cordileone, 56, delivered a sermon and spoke about his recent arrest after failing a sobriety test at a police checkpoint.
Click to expand...
He probably had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. In California, the legal limit is 0.8%. It just goes to show that archbishops can make mistakes as well. At least he owned up to it, and I imagine he won’t do it again.
 
Having lived in California nearly all my life, including many years spent in Northern California and in and around the SF Bay Area, I can speak with some authority on the population there. While the left wing, activist homosexuals get all the press (which is also generally left wing), there is a large core of hardworking Catholic families, largely Hispanic, in the greater Bay Area as well. These folks support the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, by and large, and will give the new Archbishop their full support.

God bless Pope Benedict XVI for his choice of archbishops who firmly defend the institutions of marriage and family on the West Coast!
 
Faithdancer said:
That was indeed interesting. Then after the Episcopal bishop showed up late, he apparently left in a huff because they didn’t roll out the red carpet for him anyway. :confused:
Click to expand...
Apparently so. Hard to say really, without knowing more.
 
Faithdancer said:
He probably had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. In California, the legal limit is 0.8%. It just goes to show that archbishops can make mistakes as well. At least he owned up to it, and I imagine he won’t do it again.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t judging the Archbishop by quoting the story. I was disputing your claim that the story was biased and defamatory for mentioning his DUI. Nice try at deflection though.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
I wasn’t judging the Archbishop by quoting the story. I was disputing your claim that the story was biased and defamatory for mentioning his DUI. Nice try at deflection though.
Click to expand...
The point is, that he owned up to his arrest and showed contrition. How nice it would be if all of the active homosexuals would admit the perverse and sinful nature of homosexual activity and show contrition, instead of agitating for homosexual activity to be socially accepted as somehow, “normal.”
 
1edyson said:
I work for the Archdiocese as the social media person, and here is the complete text of the archbishops homily. dropbox.com/s/x3aenddqu98kgl3/Installation.Homily.doc

I was at the Installation, and the archbishop was less “joking” about the incident, as he was using it to show humility, and not make excuses for his admitted poor judgement. He was light hearted about it, and did draw a laugh, but he wasn’t making light of the issue of drunk driving. Earlier in the week he pleaded No Contest basically and the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, but I think people are trying to blow this way out of proportion and use it as a mask to silence his outspokenness on the Church’s social teaching.

As far as the incident with bishop Andrus, it was an honest mistake with no ill will intended. Superficially because of the letter that Andrus released earlier in the week, it appears to be a snub, but it really wasn’t, but this was the response I was approved to provide on our FB Page.

“First, we apologize to Bishop Andrus, and meant no disrespect to him or the Episcopal Church. He was an invited guest to the Installation, and we regret any misunderstandings that occurred. Bishop Andrus was part of the Interfaith Procession, which had been seated as one of the first groups invited to the Installation near the front of Cathedral. He was brought into a waiting area, and the Cathedral Staff were waiting for the best moment to usher him into his assigned seating without disrupting the proceedings. However when the staff returned to bring Bishop Andrus to his seat, as indicated in his blog, the Bishop had already left. Again we sincerely offer our apology to Bishop Andrus for this unfortunate incident, and look forward to working him, and with the rest of the ecumenical interfaith community in helping to re-build and restore the House of God”
Click to expand...
The Archbishop may have committed an error in judgment. Being actively homosexual is a conscious decision to engage in a lifestyle that is objectively evil. The homosexualist agenda to change the definition of marriage is an extension of that evil.
 
On the lighter side, the policy-makers in San Francisco will apparently succeed in banning public nudity. Deo gratias!
 
Faithdancer said:
The point is, that he owned up to his arrest and showed contrition. How nice it would be if all of the active homosexuals would admit the perverse and sinful nature of homosexual activity and show contrition, instead of agitating for homosexual activity to be socially accepted as somehow, “normal.”
Click to expand...
That’s your point now, but you initially condemned the article for gratuitously mentioning his DUI arrest and charged the reporter with bias and attempted defamation. Now that that accusation has been shown to be completely without merit, you now use what you once thought defamatory as grounds for praising the Archbishop’s honesty and condemning homosexuals for their lack of same. At this rate, it won’t be long before you heap praise upon the reporter for bringing the arrest to everyone’s attention and providing this wonderful teaching moment! Too much…
 
Faithdancer said:
The point is, that he owned up to his arrest and showed contrition. How nice it would be if all of the active homosexuals would admit the perverse and sinful nature of homosexual activity and show contrition, instead of agitating for homosexual activity to be socially accepted as somehow, “normal.”
Click to expand...
The difference is that a DUI is pretty much objectively wrong. I would imagine that there are certain situations where driving drunk is morally permissible (in some sort of emergency setting for example) but this was not the case. Homosexuality is only wrong if you follow some old religious tradition that says it is wrong.
 
Faithdancer said:
The Archbishop may have committed an error in judgment. Being actively homosexual is a conscious decision to engage in a lifestyle that is objectively evil. The homosexualist agenda to change the definition of marriage is an extension of that evil.
Click to expand...
I personally think that anyone that gets a DUI is extremely immature and irresponsible. It is a bit more understandable when the person is between the ages of 16 and 23 though, because they are young and stupid. When a 56 year old arch bishop who should be a moral authority gets a DUI it is inexcusable. He is old enough to know better, and he disgraced his position.

On the other hand homosexuality is only “objectively evil” in the minds of fundamentalists. There is nothing evil about it.
 
Crescentinus said:
Now, I can sleep well tonight knowing that they are angry about this. 🙂
They are finally getting their comeuppance. 🙂
Click to expand...
They probably just see him as another bigot in their eyes. No different than any other person that believes homosexuality is wrong, he just has a bigger soap box to stand on.
 
interestedman said:
They probably just see him as another bigot in their eyes. No different than any other person that believes homosexuality is wrong, he just has a bigger soap box to stand on.
Click to expand...
And that’s more than enough for me to celebrate for. Their anger about this issue is more than enough to cheer this peasant up. 🙂
Since their comeuppance angers them, it’s something that cheers me up. 🙂
 
Semper_Zelare said:
It’s almost comical, how a bunch of sodomites are trying to call out someone for drinking. They drink too, and they practice sodomy.

Methinks they have a plank in their eyes, whereas the eye of the freshly minted Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has a speck in it.

Anyways, at least this article wasn’t as bad as the Washington Times I read. They literally quoted a chant from that group of “activist gay males dressed as nuns” that are only mentioned at the bottom of this one. And right after they quote them they start talking about Pope Benedict XVI.

Can you believe that? You go from sodomites cross-dressing as nuns to the Pope in 1 sentence. As if the first group’s opinion counted for anything in the Catholic Church.

The media tries to reduce religion to the realm of politics… where it can meddle and peddle its propaganda. The media can’t define what a Sacrament is, or administer it for that matter. The media can’t define what a Catholic is. So, instead they act like all people who vote have a say in the Catholic Church.

The easiest way to see what the media is doing here is to examine their failure to understand Christian language. A shepherd leads his flock. And yet this article and others are saying that the flock should lead the shepherd. The city of San Francisco is very gay friendly… thus the Archbishop needs to take a cue from them and change his opinion.

No. He is the Shepherd. We agree at least on that. They are the sheep. He has a staff. He’s the one in charge. His rod and staff comfort the people and guide them. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
You have an extremely unfortunate method of expressing yourself
 
Crescentinus said:
And that’s more than enough for me to celebrate for. Their anger about this issue is more than enough to cheer this peasant up. 🙂
Since their comeuppance angers them, it’s something that cheers me up. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well unfortunately for you, and I guess the church, gay marriage is going to win. It will become legal nationally soon enough.
 
Crescentinus said:
Yeah, and the Catholic Church will still oppose it.
Your point?
Click to expand...
Well you are “celebrating (the gay community’s) anger” about the issue of gay marriage. I am just saying that they are going to have the last laugh.
 
interestedman said:
Well you are “celebrating (the gay community’s) anger” about the issue of gay marriage. I am just saying that they are going to have the last laugh.
Click to expand...
Not the gay community’s anger because they are not some collective that expresses their anger as one unit.
I’m saying that as the homosexualists as well as the enablers are angry and it gives me joy for they are receiving their comeuppance.

They are going to have the last laugh, you say? Wrong. They will not have the last laugh, for the Catholic Church will never cave in to their demands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top