Prominent Catholics call on pope to oust S.F. archbishop

[FollowChrist34]

I have been asked in the past to sign morality agreements and I have done so wholeheartedly. I am not objecting to them. I am objecting to only requiring openly gay people to sign them.

I think that there has been a drowning out of Church teaching, but I don’t believe it was malicious in any manner. We live in a Protestant country, one in which self-exploration is encouraged. So someone who is gay or lesbian growing up in this country is going to experience their attractions as a leading example for “how things should be.” And considering the gay rights movement was started in response to police brutality (Stonewall, etc.), it has merely morphed into a movement for gays who want to be treated like straight people. They are capable of coupling with members of the same sex with the same love as heterosexuals do with their opposite sex partners, and so they want to be able to have the same civil life as heterosexuals. That is where the push for SSM came from. People look at this so much from a Catholic perspective, but in reality, the US is not Catholic at all and never has been (in fact, Catholics were persecuted for quite a large portion of the country’s history). We need to look at it from a Protestant perspective, where marriage isn’t Sacramental (with a few exceptions). It’s just an actuarial institution designed to stabilize families and provide for lower societal health costs and greater familial strength. Under this logic, SSM is logical.

So when interacting with the LGBT community, one needs to understand that their support for SSM, etc. has nothing to do with a dislike for the Church. We need to stop assuming people have malicious intent. They just yearn for partnership. Harmful language reinforces assumptions of malicious intent (and also presents an aura of condescension, rightfully or not). Consider this when you deal with LGBT people, please.

(I have to go now, so this will be quick)

American liberal Protestantism is, pardon me, a bastardization of classic Protestantism, which is based on Christian doctrine. You are mischaracterizing the Protestants here wildly. A Southern Baptist’s head would be spinning. Martin Luther would breathe fire - ask a Missouri Synod member. The culprit is secularism/Enlightenment, etc., which railroaded over Protestantism and is now trying to do the same thing to Catholicism (quite effectively is some areas - ask Cordelione).

I think support for SSM may well be based on a need for companionship. As you know, many straight people support it for just that reason. My point is that it is contrary to the truth of the Gospel. That is what I live by and expound, to all, equally. As sensitively as possible of course! I couldn’t care less who my audience is. That would defeat the purpose.

I think it is entirely reasonable to ask openly gay people to sign this statement! I am perplexed at the resistance - at least from those claiming to adhere to the Catholic faith. Makes no sense.

 

[SMGS127]

I think it is entirely reasonable to ask openly gay people to sign this statement! I am perplexed at the resistance - at least from those claiming to adhere to the Catholic faith. Makes no sense.

I agree! Don’t get me wrong.

What I oppose is singling out gay people for oaths. Straight people are assumed to be fidelious, but gay people are assumed to be infidelious. THAT is what I have a problem with, not the oath itself. That is also why CALGM refused to sign. If gay people are not treated on an equal level in the Church, then gay people will never join the Church.

 

[Elizium23]

But that’s my point. Everyone who wanted to do what you did has to do that. Imagine if the diocese had said “because you’re [insert race here]” or “because you’re male” or “because you’re straight,” “you have to sign this but no one else who wants to lecture has to.” You wouldn’t be offended if someone asked you to sign an oath because of how you looked or spoke?

How about “because you’ve ignored Church teaching in the past and I can’t trust you unless I have your solemn word down on paper”

You keep insisting that CALGM is just like everyone else and yet they’re not. They have consistently omitted Church teachings on chastity. You say it’s not a crime to be openly homosexual and you say that doesn’t mean that you’re actively homosexual. Well, CALGM doesn’t make that distinction. There are priests and bishops saying that they don’t. And this is why they’re being asked to sign an oath of fidelity, not because they have tattoos.

 

[kozlosap]

I have been asked in the past to sign morality agreements and I have done so wholeheartedly. I am not objecting to them. I am objecting to only requiring openly gay people to sign them.

I think that there has been a drowning out of Church teaching, but I don’t believe it was malicious in any manner. We live in a Protestant country, one in which self-exploration is encouraged. So someone who is gay or lesbian growing up in this country is going to experience their attractions as a leading example for “how things should be.” And considering the gay rights movement was started in response to police brutality (Stonewall, etc.), it has merely morphed into a movement for gays who want to be treated like straight people. They are capable of coupling with members of the same sex with the same love as heterosexuals do with their opposite sex partners, and so they want to be able to have the same civil life as heterosexuals. That is where the push for SSM came from. People look at thi:thumbsup::thumbsup:s so much from a Catholic perspective, but in reality, the US is not Catholic at all and never has been (in fact, Catholics were persecuted for quite a large portion of the country’s history). We need to look at it from a Protestant perspective, where marriage isn’t Sacramental (with a few exceptions). It’s just an actuarial institution designed to stabilize families and provide for lower societal health costs and greater familial strength. Under this logic, SSM is logical.

So when interacting with the LGBT community, one needs to understand that their support for SSM, etc. has nothing to do with a dislike for the Church. We need to stop assuming people have malicious intent. They just yearn for partnership. Harmful language reinforces assumptions of malicious intent (and also presents an aura of condescension, rightfully or not). Consider this when you deal with LGBT people, please.

:thumbsup:wonderful explanation

 

[SMGS127]

You keep insisting that CALGM is just like everyone else and yet they’re not. They have consistently omitted Church teachings on chastity. You say it’s not a crime to be openly homosexual and you say that doesn’t mean that you’re actively homosexual. Well, CALGM doesn’t make that distinction. There are priests and bishops saying that they don’t. And this is why they’re being asked to sign an oath of fidelity, not because they have tattoos.

They do, in fact, make that distinction. They also quote the Catechism on their website . Any gay person who attended a CALGM event would know their position on same-sex sexual relations.

 

[Elizium23]

They do, in fact, make that distinction. They also quote the Catechism on their website . Any gay person who attended a CALGM event would know their position on same-sex sexual relations.

Father Shenan J. Boquet, president of Human Life International, told LifeSiteNews.com that the video series presents an unbalanced view of Catholic teaching.

“It is good to point out that the Church nowhere condemns people who are attracted to members of the same sex,” he said. “As the Church says, it is not the person with same-sex attraction that is disordered, it is the attraction itself that is disordered, and homosexual acts themselves are always gravely sinful.”

But he said that it is a failure of pastoral charity and genuine brotherly love to “create the impression that sinful behavior is somehow morally acceptable in the Church, or that an identity based on disordered sexuality must be celebrated by the Church.”

“In a modern social and political climate where the Church is being persecuted precisely for her truthful and loving stand on human sexuality and marriage, what we need is not more ambiguity about what the Church teaches, but a more robust defense of the truth that she holds,” he said.

“And organizations that have been rightly chastised by our bishops for their public opposition to Church teaching should not receive an uncritical hearing in Catholic media.”

Paragraph 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that while people with same-sex attraction “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” Scripture clearly “presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity.”

“[T]radition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’. They are contrary to the natural law,” it adds. “They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

This teaching is not mentioned in any of the three videos of the series.

Further Information in Support of Example:
“There is no mention on the site of the essential “call to chastity”.”

We find no evidence of a fundamental issue when ministering to persons with a homosexual inclination: that is, a call to chastity. However, throughout the site, Catholics are called to “listen to and ponder the lived experience of lesbian and gay persons and their families” and to “encourage the participation of lesbian and gay Catholics within the Church.”

 

[Dawnia]

Honestly, I agree that Archbishop Cordileone was inappropriate for the SF area.

I think he is exactly where God intended him to be.

If someone needs a specific example of why Archbishop Cordileone is a bad fit for SF, a good example is his refusal to recognize an orthodox gay or lesbian Catholic group because they refused to stop using the words “gay” and “lesbian.”

I had never heard of Calgm before so went and looked them up. Calling them orthodox is a stretch. The people who they surround themselves with says they are anything but orthodox.

 

[davidv]

Honestly, I agree that Archbishop Cordileone was inappropriate for the SF area.

On what basis dare you second guess a key decision by a Pope?

He would fit a fullthroated conservative area quite well, but he is not very skilled at evangelization, which is what is needed in the SF area.

Sounds like a claim without evidence.

That being said, I agree with kozlosap that while I believe Pope Francis would have never appointed him there, he will also not remove him, as it would issue the wrong message.

Pretty secular thinking, I think.

If someone needs a specific example of why Archbishop Cordileone is a bad fit for SF, a good example is his refusal to recognize an orthodox gay or lesbian Catholic group because they refused to stop using the words “gay” and “lesbian.”

Sounds like a perfectly valid reason for doing so.

ncronline.org/news/spirituality/gay-ministry-group-refuses-sign-oath

Another example is how he declined calls to step down from a parade that was organized and participated in by anti-gay hate groups.

sfgate.com/lgbt/article/S-F-archbishop-March-for-Marriage-is-not-5557050.php

These actions just make gay people feel unwelcome in the Church, which should be a non-starter for an archbishop for San Francisco.

Edit: I want to make clear I am not attacking his character. I am sure he means well for all his parishioners (and all San Franciscans). But his strategies are not a good fit for San Francisco; they are isolating.

Maybe isolation from those working for Satan is what is required.

 

[Elizium23]

Among ‘Catholic Leaders’ against Cordileone, Some Veteran Activists against Catholic Teaching

Among the signers of the letter is Brian Cahill, for example, who has been criticizing the Catholic Church for her teachings on homosexuality since long before Archbishop Cordileone ever arrived. Cahill publicly denounced Catholic such teachings even during his tenure as executive director of Catholic Charities/Catholic Youth Organization in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. In the San Francisco Chronicle 2011, he wrote, “I am a Catholic who voted against Proposition 8 in 2008 and contributed $1,000 to the No on 8 Campaign.” The opinion piece appeared under the headline “My Gay Son: The Face of Church’s Lack of Respect.” It is understandable that Cahill would be less than welcoming to Archbishop Cordileone, who helped lead ecumenical efforts to pass Proposition 8 and ensure that marriage would continue to be defined as a union between one man and one woman. While still leader of Catholic Charities/CYO, Cahill, repudiating Catholic policies that prevented gay couples from adopting children through his organization, allowed several children to be adopted by gay parents.

Sam Singer knows that Brian Cahill is a “useful idiot” in his plan to destroy Archbishop Cordileone. Still, it is understandable that Cahill would like the Church to change her teachings on homosexuality. He loves his gay son and wants the best for him. Having lost his other son, John Francis Cahill, to a tragic suicide in 2008, he likely has made a commitment to removing any barriers to happiness for his son. But that is the real tragedy. Removing San Francisco’s archbishop would not change the teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. In some ways it would only make things worse for the Cahill family, as they would have to acknowledge the role they have played in this most destructive campaign they have waged.

 

[SMGS127]

I had never heard of Calgm before so went and looked them up. Calling them orthodox is a stretch. The people who they surround themselves with says they are anything but orthodox.

I wasn’t aware Catholics were to isolate themselves in seas of righteous people, leaving sinners to drown. I’m aware this isn’t what you were implying we should do, but this is why they surround themselves with gays who aren’t Catholic. My entire friend group is non-Catholic. It’s hard to evangelize if you will only hang out with conservative Catholics.

As to david: I don’t respond to people anymore who question my commitment to the faith or orthodoxy.

 

[Dawnia]

I wasn’t aware Catholics were to isolate themselves in seas of righteous people, leaving sinners to drown. I’m aware this isn’t what you were implying we should do, but this is why they surround themselves with gays who aren’t Catholic. My entire friend group is non-Catholic. It’s hard to evangelize if you will only hang out with conservative Catholics.

As to david: I don’t respond to people anymore who question my commitment to the faith or orthodoxy.

It wasn’t the gays I was referring to. Courage hangs out with gays too.

I was referring to those people they chose to learn from and align themselves with. When one of the founders preaches that gays do not need to be celibate (in opposition to Church teaching) or that the Church will change it’s stance on same gender relationships eventually and when as a group all of the speakers openly oppose Catholic teaching on sexual issues and in some cases promote “women priests”, gender theory, radical feminism/goddess worship, etc and align themselves with known dissident groups, they show their true colors.

 

[SMGS127]

It wasn’t the gays I was referring to. Courage hands out with gays too.

I was referring to those people they chose to learn from and align themselves with. When one of the founders preaches that gays do not need to be celibate (in opposition to Church teaching) or that the Church will change it’s stance on same gender relationships eventually and when as a group all of the speakers openly oppose Catholic teaching on sexual issues and in some cases promote “women priests”, gender theory, radical feminism/goddess worship, etc and align themselves with known dissident groups, they show their true colors.

I have never seen anything of the sort with any of what you’re discussing. I would be more than willing to see evidence to the contrary. Archbishop Cordileone has negotiated with them in their mission, so clearly their mission cannot be radically contrary to the Catholic mission as your post would suggest.

Also, to be clear, Courage does not hang out with active gays. Courage hangs out with gays who have already committed to being Catholic. Again, evangelization is impossible if we refuse to allow ourselves to integrate with active, unrepentant sinners. It defeats the point of evangelizing if we will only “evangelize” to orthodox Catholics.

 

[Lormar]

Archbishop Cordileone has the responsibility to protect, teach and encourage the faithful in trusted to Him. Period. He is not a politician, nor is he in a popularity contest. He has one job. The same one Christ gave to the 11 on the shores of Galilee, feed the sheep. The homosexual lobby, The feminist lobby, the athiest lobby, the progressive lobby can rant all they wish. Loud harping and threats do not make them right and the Archbishop wrong. It is a war now. And faithful Catholics need to wake up and realize that. “If the world hates you, wonder not. Remember it hated me first.”

 

[Havard]

It defeats the point of evangelizing if we will only “evangelize” to orthodox Catholics.

This is an important point.

I hope people take a moment and reflect on it.

 

[Elizium23]

This is an important point.

I hope people take a moment and reflect on it.

But the people doing the evangelization need to be orthodox. This doesn’t mean that they have to be walking Catechisms, it just means that they need to agree with the key teachings they are proposing.

I made a search of “chastity” on calgm.org. There are six hits. Four are quotes from the Catechism. One multiple hit is in a Canadian document not written by CALGM. The sixth hit is interesting to me. It indicates a talk given during a 2011 CALGM conference on “What is Chastity from an LGBT perspective?” This talk is given by someone whose record indicates he has been involved with New Ways Ministry, and has held nude retreats and nude interviews, and has several people calling out for his censure.

CALGM also omits certain Church documents from their website. There seems to be a selectivity here and a lack of “straight talk”, if you will pardon the phrase, honesty about the Church’s position on the universal call to chastity and how that applies to openly homosexual people. It seems that that would be a key question coming from inquirers and they deserve an orthodox answer. I don’t see how presenting orthodox teaching prevents a ministry from evangelizing to anyone.

I just spent nine months in an RCIA class and the deacon systematically presented orthodox teachings and tried his best to open dialogue about potential points of disagreement. Several years ago, my parish underwent a door-to-door evangelization project. Anyone responding to our invitations would have met with people faithful to Church teachings, including our religious and clergy. Evangelization is best when the truth is spoken in charity. There is no doubt that the Church has some hard teachings, but there is nothing to prevent us from defending these teachings in a way that will not alienate people of good will.

 

[Dawnia]

I have never seen anything of the sort with any of what you’re discussing. I would be more than willing to see evidence to the contrary. Archbishop Cordileone has negotiated with them in their mission, so clearly their mission cannot be radically contrary to the Catholic mission as your post would suggest.

Also, to be clear, Courage does not hang out with active gays. Courage hangs out with gays who have already committed to being Catholic. Again, evangelization is impossible if we refuse to allow ourselves to integrate with active, unrepentant sinners. It defeats the point of evangelizing if we will only “evangelize” to orthodox Catholics.

It only takes a few moments on Google to look up the people they associate with.

And as I said, it isn’t the people they minister to cause the problem.

 

[Lion_IRC]

SMGS127;12909321:

…It defeats the point of evangelizing if we will only “evangelize” to orthodox Catholics.

This is an important point.

I hope people take a moment and reflect on it.

I see what you did there. wink

 

[estesbob]

This is an important point.

I hope people take a moment and reflect on it.

How about we should only evangelize people with orthodox Catholic views? I always wonder why people who have propensity to commit the sin of homosexuality demand special outreach or treatment from the Church . I think the biggest problem is identifying oneself by their sexual attractions.

 

[Havard]

But the people doing the evangelization need to be orthodox. This doesn’t mean that they have to be walking Catechisms, it just means that they need to agree with the key teachings they are proposing.

I made a search of “chastity” on calgm.org. There are six hits. Four are quotes from the Catechism. One multiple hit is in a Canadian document not written by CALGM. The sixth hit is interesting to me. It indicates a talk given during a 2011 CALGM conference on “What is Chastity from an LGBT perspective?” This talk is given by someone whose record indicates he has been involved with New Ways Ministry, and has held nude retreats and nude interviews, and has several people calling out for his censure.

CALGM also omits certain Church documents from their website. There seems to be a selectivity here and a lack of “straight talk”, if you will pardon the phrase, honesty about the Church’s position on the universal call to chastity and how that applies to openly homosexual people. It seems that that would be a key question coming from inquirers and they deserve an orthodox answer. I don’t see how presenting orthodox teaching prevents a ministry from evangelizing to anyone.

I just spent nine months in an RCIA class and the deacon systematically presented orthodox teachings and tried his best to open dialogue about potential points of disagreement. Several years ago, my parish underwent a door-to-door evangelization project. Anyone responding to our invitations would have met with people faithful to Church teachings, including our religious and clergy. Evangelization is best when the truth is spoken in charity. There is no doubt that the Church has some hard teachings, but there is nothing to prevent us from defending these teachings in a way that will not alienate people of good will.

Just to be clear, my comment wasn’t about or specific to CALGM. I don’t disagree with anything you say. I was trying to draw a broad point out of a more specific discussion. It seems like half of us are really solid when it comes to orthodoxy, but need to work on our welcoming, pastoral approach. And the other half are quite invested in being welcoming/pastoral, but get very skittish or shy when it comes to articulating orthodoxy. My comment was more for the former group. We all have bits to work on.

 

[Havard]

How about we should only evangelize people with orthodox Catholic views? I always wonder why people who have propensity to commit the sin of homosexuality demand special outreach or treatment from the Church . I think the biggest problem is identifying oneself by their sexual attractions.

If we’re a hospital for sinners, and they are demanding special treatment, that only confirms to me that they are in need special treatment in the form of preaching about humility, in addition to chastity.