More on Bishop Niederauer's radio interview from NOR

[rien]

The April 2007 NOR has more quotes from Niederhauer’s KCBS radio interview.
The NOR has a more detailed exerpt of the archbishop’s radio interview which has encouraged some Catholics, but discouraged others: This is in the May 2007 NOR in an article titled “The Most Equivocal Man In Town”.

Asked by the interviewer Cavagnaro “I think you’ve said sexual orientation had nothing to do with the clergy abuse cases, in your view, or at least to a large degree”

The bishop replied:

“It seemed to me not, yeah”.

When asked about Pelosi the bishop said:

“But I don’t believe I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be.”

NOR goes on to note after that answer that the interviewer just explained Peolisi’s postion:

Cavagnaro had lead into the question with:

“Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic from San Francisco…She is not only pro-choice, but she would be someone who would be working to try to keep abortion legal”.

On abortion and those Catholics who support it the bishop said:

“I would hope for a kind of dialog, an exchange, in which there would be an openess to understanding where the person …other person is coming from, but also an openess on their part to the longstanding tradition of the Church… so I think…I think… the dialog is what’s important”.

Draw your own conclusions but NOR ends the article by stating:

“And this is the man Pope Benedict selected to lead - *lead *- the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Pope Benedict made a big mistake”.

 

[Dale_M]

The entire interview is online at:
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=12ef4704-2b61-4288-9759-93ecc500a11f

 

[fix]

Ed Cavagnaro: Last year you faced the issue of gay adoption, when the Church announced that children should not be placed in same-sex households. But you worked out a solution that allowed Catholic Charities to still participate in placing children. Explain how that worked and do you see more issue being settled in this way?

Archbishop George Niederauer: Well, I don’t know about other issues being settled in that way, but I think what we were after was some participation in the work of finding families for children who needed adopting. And, after all, that’s what you focus on. You don’t – the most important person in the adoption is the child. Important as it is for couples to be able to adopt a child if they want to, it’s most important of all that the child have a home, Now the Church’s teaching is that the model for that is a father and a mother, so that’s the paradigm that we would insist upon. So, because we could no longer make that distinction, because of State law, what we found, and I’m really very happy with the decision made by the Catholic Charities CEO, on that, was to work with the program on the Internet for finding homes for children, posting their pictures and being able to guide people who would be interested in this particular child to an adoption agency which could handle the situation. Now there are those within the Church, and I understand and respect their opinion, who feel that’s, even that is too much of an involvement, but I believe we have examined what we’re doing and vetted it very carefully and what we’re really doing is putting potential adoptive parents in touch with adoption agencies that can help them.

 

[mdzialo1]

Bishop Niederauer: Fearless Leader (Haw Haw).

 

[mark_a]

“I would hope for a kind of dialog, an exchange, in which there would be an openess to understanding where the person …other person is coming from, but also an openess on their part to the longstanding tradition of the Church… so I think…I think… the dialog is what’s important”.

Boy am I gonna get hammered, but dialog is important.

This reminds me of some on this board who think the Church should lock out any single parent or any couple that doesn’t have 1.25 kids for every year they’ve been married or anyone with homosexual tendancies.

If we lock them out, how will they ever know the truth?

 

[Servulus]

Boy am I gonna get hammered

The following does not constitute a hammer, but rather a possible disagreement with your interpretation of views expressed on these fora.

This reminds me of some on this board who think the Church should lock out any single parent

Do you think they really want to “lock out” widows/widowers, those who are divorced but not remarried, or those who have a regrettable past but have turned their lives around and taken responsibility for their actions? Or is it possible that their objection is to the behavior of those who are publicly and obstinately living a life that does not conform to the moral law?

or any couple that doesn’t have 1.25 kids for every year they’ve been married

Are people saying we should “lock out” those who practice NFP or those who are barren? Or are their comments in reaction to only those who willfully (and in some cases openly) fly in the face of the teaching of the Church with regard to marriage but still present themselves as faithful?

or anyone with homosexual tendancies.

I believe that most of the members of this forum would agree that a tendency or temptation of any kind (homosexuality, promiscuity, gluttony, alcoholism, etc.) is not cause to “lock out” anyone. However, those who openly and without apparent regret pursue their tendencies or yield to their temptations might rightly be considered to have separated themselves from the body of the faithful.

If we lock them out, how will they ever know the truth?

I’ve highlighted the phase “lock out” in my responses because I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that people here really want other physically barred from church, or if it’s just hyperbole. I think it would be more correct to say that the view is that people whose unrepentant behavior is inconsistent with a serious attempt to live the Faith shouldn’t try to have it both ways.

 

[mark_a]

I’ve highlighted the phase “lock out” in my responses because I’m not sure if you’re suggesting that people here really want other physically barred from church, or if it’s just hyperbole. I think it would be more correct to say that the view is that people whose unrepentant behavior is inconsistent with a serious attempt to live the Faith shouldn’t try to have it both ways.

“Lock out” was a poor choice of words for me to use.

Do you think they really want to “lock out” widows/widowers, those who are divorced but not remarried, or those who have a regrettable past but have turned their lives around and taken responsibility for their actions?

No, not these.

Or is it possible that their objection is to the behavior of those who are publicly and obstinately living a life that does not conform to the moral law?

I’m speaking here of some who would have anyone who disagrees with church teaching leave the Church and find a Church that suits them. I know in my own case that although there was a time when I did not understand or agree with some church teachings, a very loving priest would urge me to “please come to church”. Where might I be without him? How would I have reacted if he treated me harshly?

Or are their comments in reaction to only those who willfully (and in some cases openly) fly in the face of the teaching of the Church with regard to marriage but still present themselves as faithful?

This is probably the case.

But accepting Church teaching can be an extremely slow and difficult process, especially if one is (as so many are) unfamiliar with correct church teaching and the reasoning behind it.

If dialog is shut down, if that priest had told me to take it or leave it (church teaching), I may have had no other chance. I may have become even more stubborn.