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

[Havard]

I see what you did there. wink

Lol, what did I do there? Depending on what it was, it may not have been intentional.

 

[Dawnia]

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.

God gives everyone different gifts.

 

[St_Pancake]

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially because he is an Archbishop, and I truly believe he has the best wishes of his congregation in mind, but his attitude towards the so-called “March for Marriage” parade and CALGM really disappointed me. Again, I believe he cares about gay people, but I don’t think he realizes how callous and uncaring some of his actions come across as.

Was it truly necessary for him to march in the parade? Could he not have requested that the sponsors withdraw themselves or created his own parade instead?

Was it truly necessary for him to force CALGM, and only CALGM, to sign an oath swearing allegiance to the Church, despite verbal commitments on the part of all higher-ups to Church teaching, merely because they refused to cease using the words “gay” and “lesbian” and other phrasing (“being proud of being gay,” etc.) that, while not at odds with Catholic teaching, sounds at odds to conservatives who see being gay as a behavior, not an orientation?

I know he cares. I just wish he’d see how he comes across and adjust his behavior to show his compassion more. If he’s incapable of that, then I don’t think he should be stationed in an area that needs that outward compassion (more of a Pope Francis style of tough love) and evangelization more than anything.

I truly don’t understand the CALGM situation. Why were they being asked to sign an oath? Were they looking to be a part of the Church or under the umbrella of the Church? I’ve tried to look back in the thread and receive some understanding on the subject but still do not understand.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt

MEET THE OPPONENTS OF SAN FRANCISCO’S ARCHBISHOP

Charles Geschke is the co-chairman of Adobe Systems, which had 2014 revenue of $4.147 billion. He has given over $200,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign and $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Reuters reports his basic compensation at $4,129,090 with $5,302,000 in exercisable, $19,993,300 in unexercisable, and $10,993,600 in exercised options compensation.

Louis J. Giraudo is the former chairman of Pabst Brewing and a partner at Coblentz Patch Duffy and Bass LLP, where he “is focused on mergers and acquisitions of companies with revenues of $50 million to $2.5 billion.” He “has negotiated labor agreements for companies with as many as 11,000 employees, as well as acquisitions and sales of hotels and other real property.”

David Grubb is the former president of construction firm Swinerton Inc. After a 240-ton tower crane operated by a subcontractor hired by his firm fell and killed five people in 1989, he told a House subcommittee that “‘we don’t deal with safety’ records when it comes to hiring subcontractors.” The company hired by his firm had been cited for fifty-nine violations between 1985 and 1988 with proposed fines totaling $110,000.

Larry Nibbi is CEO of Nibbi Brothers Construction, a company with $199 million in 2014 revenue according to the Engineering News-Record. The company was cited for three serious OSHA violations in 2011 after an inadequately constructed concrete form collapsed, allowing the wet concrete to partly bury three workers. OSHA determined that “the employer overloaded their working platform center support beam that broke in two, causing a catastrophic failure of the platform and the false work above.” The project the injured men were working on was worth $40 million.

Clint Reilly worked on political campaigns for Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer before becoming “founder and owner of the Clinton Reilly Holdings, a diversified family of commercial real estate and hospitality businesses” and amassing an “estimated $100 million fortune.” In 2001, a writer for SF Weekly described a visit to Reilly’s home: “My leather-jacketed host, Clint Reilly, taps a code into the security system that unlocks the metal gate to his 120-acre estate in Napa County. In his black Mercedes sedan, we climb past hillside vineyards and through a pine forest, emerging on top of Mount Veeder, where we park in front of a chateau.”

Sam Singer, a PR man hired by opponents of Cordileone, did not sign, but has done much to promote, the letter. He was profiled by SF Weekly in 2014: “When your workspace is engulfed in flames; when your mistress threatens to reveal your illegitimate family; when your restaurant serves up E. coli burgers; when your employees inadvertently kill a young child; when a wild beast rampages through your place of business — you better call Sam Singer.”

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, costs for full-page ads “typically run in the tens of thousands of dollars.”

As Pope Francis has said, “poor and for the poor.”

 

[estesbob]

I truly don’t understand the CALGM situation. Why were they being asked to sign an oath? Were they looking to be a part of the Church or under the umbrella of the Church? I’ve tried to look back in the thread and receive some understanding on the subject but still do not understand.

I don’t understand how it is relevant to the competency of the Archbishop of San Francisco to minister to his flock

 

[St_Pancake]

I don’t understand how it is relevant to the competency of the Archbishop of San Francisco to minister to his flock

No offense, but I wasn’t asking you. I just wanted an answer to that.

 

[St_Pancake]

I don’t understand how it is relevant to the competency of the Archbishop of San Francisco to minister to his flock

And frankly, if we’re speaking of his competency, wouldn’t things that some see as wrongdoing be relevant?

 

[SMGS127]

I truly don’t understand the CALGM situation. Why were they being asked to sign an oath? Were they looking to be a part of the Church or under the umbrella of the Church? I’ve tried to look back in the thread and receive some understanding on the subject but still do not understand.

They wished to be on a list of recommended LGBT resources for the SF diocese. The Archbishop refused and insisted on a set of negotiations. They agreed to negotiations and readily agreed to every term he asked except his request for them to stop using the words “gay” and “lesbian” in their ministry. In response to this one refusal, he told them he would refuse to recommend them unless they signed an oath, despite verbal commitments to the Church and their following every one of his other requests. They took offense to being singled out for this oath on the basis of terminology alone, and so they refused out of principle. He responded by refusing to recommend them as a Catholic LGBT resource, despite their orthodoxy.

 

[St_Pancake]

They wished to be on a list of recommended LGBT resources for the SF diocese. The Archbishop refused and insisted on a set of negotiations. They agreed to negotiations and readily agreed to every term he asked except his request for them to stop using the words “gay” and “lesbian” in their ministry. In response to this one refusal, he told them he would refuse to recommend them unless they signed an oath, despite verbal commitments to the Church and their following every one of his other requests. They took offense to being singled out for this oath on the basis of terminology alone, and so they refused out of principle. He responded by refusing to recommend them as a Catholic LGBT resource, despite their orthodoxy.

I think that everyone needs to sign an oath and perhaps, that is his plan going forward. If the desire was to be recommended by the Church, then they would have signed the oath. It wasn’t important because they didn’t. It really is that simple.

As for everyone else signing an oath, unfortunately it will have to come to that. The entire country is shocked when the Catholic Church insists that it’s employees not flagrantly live their lives in opposition to doctrine. It is the secular world, that is forcing that things be in writing. In fact, that is the topic of this thread. The Archbishop wants additions to contracts and this group opposes.

 

[sps49]

They wished to be on a list of recommended LGBT resources for the SF diocese. The Archbishop refused and insisted on a set of negotiations. They agreed to negotiations and readily agreed to every term he asked except his request for them to stop using the words “gay” and “lesbian” in their ministry. In response to this one refusal, he told them he would refuse to recommend them unless they signed an oath, despite verbal commitments to the Church and their following every one of his other requests. They took offense to being singled out for this oath on the basis of terminology alone, and so they refused out of principle. He responded by refusing to recommend them as a Catholic LGBT resource, despite their orthodoxy.

SMGS127, was this not an issue in 2012 for the Oakland Diocese when Archbishop Cordileone was it’s bishop after Bishop Vigneron? See:

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

“Cordileone’s list of concerns with the association have included the omission of specific church documents on its website and publications; its use of the terms gay and lesbian; members’ statements deemed critical of the church; and the backgrounds, affiliations and public statements of both conference speakers and board members.”

It looks like there may have been more than “terminology alone” at work here. Archbishop Cordileone was a good bishop for the Oakland Diocese, and it is good to see him continuing that work across the Bay.

 

[SMGS127]

SMGS127, was this not an issue in 2012 for the Oakland Diocese when Archbishop Cordileone was it’s bishop after Bishop Vigneron? See:

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

“Cordileone’s list of concerns with the association have included the omission of specific church documents on its website and publications; its use of the terms gay and lesbian; members’ statements deemed critical of the church; and the backgrounds, affiliations and public statements of both conference speakers and board members.”

It looks like there may have been more than “terminology alone” at work here. Archbishop Cordileone was a good bishop for the Oakland Diocese, and it is good to see him continuing that work across the Bay.

Your link is dated. This was before the negotiations Archbishop Cordileone requested. Afterwards, they acceded to every one of his requests except his request for them to remove the terms “gay” and “lesbian” from their ministry/website. All of the concerns listed above have since been changed to Cordileone’s request.

 

[SMGS127]

I think that everyone needs to sign an oath and perhaps, that is his plan going forward. If the desire was to be recommended by the Church, then they would have signed the oath. It wasn’t important because they didn’t. It really is that simple.

As for everyone else signing an oath, unfortunately it will have to come to that. The entire country is shocked when the Catholic Church insists that it’s employees not flagrantly live their lives in opposition to doctrine. It is the secular world, that is forcing that things be in writing. In fact, that is the topic of this thread. The Archbishop wants additions to contracts and this group opposes.

However, it continues to be that the only group forced to sign an oath or be rejected as a Catholic resource is the gay/lesbian support group that dares to use terminology consistent with evangelization. I am positive they would have no problem signing an oath if it were requested of every organization. The fact that they were singled out for an oath is what they are objecting to. As I said, if I were forced to sign an oath in order to call myself Catholic merely because I am out as a lesbian (and use the word “lesbian”), I would similarly reject out of offense and principle. I don’t legitimize seclusion of/distrust in gays/lesbians in the Church.

 

[sps49]

Your link is dated. This was before the negotiations Archbishop Cordileone requested. Afterwards, they acceded to every one of his requests except his request for them to remove the terms “gay” and “lesbian” from their ministry/website. All of the concerns listed above have since been changed to Cordileone’s request.

Dated, but relevant. Give us a cookie; what link do you have?

 

[SMGS127]

Dated, but relevant. Give us a cookie; what link do you have?

Actually, it is in your link!

The letter also addressed Cordileone’s concern about quotes from members in newsletters he deemed antithetical to church teachings. One statement the bishop highlighted came from the February 2004 RECLAIM newsletter:

“Some of the biggest challenges to the ministry do not come from within the parish or archdiocese. They come from the negative language of some church documents on homosexuality and the ongoing publicizing of it by the Catholic and secular media.”

The board said the passage came from parents of a homosexually-oriented high school boy who thought he could not be confirmed, and reflected "the frequently voiced and misunderstood language of “intrinsically disordered” and “inclined to evil” – words used in church teachings, but ones that most lay people don’t understand and find offensive, demeaning and alienating.

While the board acknowledged both the family “clearly lacked an understanding of the fullness of Catholic teaching,” the phrases the boy heard in his confirmation class concerning homosexual persons "told him clearly that he did not belong – and that he was seen as less than whole. "

“This is the kind of misunderstanding that CALGM strives to correct. It is our hope that Church teaching can be clearly presented without the use of language that causes confusion and sometimes alienation,” the board explained.

In the future, the board agreed to be more vigilant in what it posts and publishes, and to include editorial comments when necessary to minimize potential misunderstanding.

Ensuing letters detailed the association’s progress in implementing Cordileone’s requests, including:

• modifying website content to include specific church documents;
• adding editorial remarks to opinions criticizing or inaccurately portraying church teachings, and stating CALGM did not share in them;
• Using church language – “persons with a homosexual inclination” – when presenting church teaching, and “gay” and “lesbian” when communicating with whom they minister;
• providing the bishop a copy of each newsletter before distribution to members;
• Continuing the practice of providing the names of proposed speakers to the bishop of the diocese where conferences are held.

Nelson, in a March 29 letter, informed the Oakland bishop the board would not take his oath: “In the course of our conversations with you over the last year, we have endeavored to engage and respond to each of the concerns that you have raised about our pastoral ministry.”

She continued: “Sadly, there always seems to be something that you say ‘confirms [your] doubts’ about us and our work. … We have tried to gain your trust … We have tried to assure you that we are faithful disciples in parishes and dioceses doing the pastoral work of the Church …”

“We hope you can understand, then, our confusion at the ‘Oath of Personal Integrity in Belief and Practice Regarding the Teachings of the Catholic Church.’ Suddenly, the terms of our long conversation have migrated from the work of the Association to the personal lives of the Board members,” she said.

At the end of the letter, Nelson expressed hope that CALGM would continue a ministry she called a “tremendous value to you and our Church at a time when conventional wisdom would inaccurately characterize Roman Catholicism as ‘against gay people,’” adding, “For our part, we need you and your apostolic service to hold us in deep communion with the Body of Christ. We hope and pray that we can continue to minister with you in the Church we all love.”

 

[sps49]

Actually, it is in your link!

So let me understand this, my “dated” link is your source too?

 

[SMGS127]

So let me understand this, my “dated” link is your source too?

When I said it was dated, I meant your quoted section was dated. I did not have time to open your link at the time * but when I had a second I read it, and your link included an update explaining CALGM’s response to the Archbishop.*

 

[St_Pancake]

However, it continues to be that the only group forced to sign an oath or be rejected as a Catholic resource is the gay/lesbian support group that dares to use terminology consistent with evangelization. I am positive they would have no problem signing an oath if it were requested of every organization. The fact that they were singled out for an oath is what they are objecting to. As I said, if I were forced to sign an oath in order to call myself Catholic merely because I am out as a lesbian (and use the word “lesbian”), I would similarly reject out of offense and principle. I don’t legitimize seclusion of/distrust in gays/lesbians in the Church.

I wouldn’t have a problem signing such an oath. Why couldn’t they? Is it because they could not honestly agree that they supported Church doctrine? If you have a copy of the oath, I can sign it today. I do support and agree with Church doctrine. It doesn’t matter because Calgm wasn’t important enough for them to affirm in writing what they say they believe.

It’s signing a simple piece of paper that outlines what you already claim you believe. Seriously? That’s a big imposition?

The downside for the Church, without them affirming their Catholic beliefs, is being stabbed in the back by a Church endorsed association.

The Bishop did the right thing.

 

[estesbob]

And frankly, if we’re speaking of his competency, wouldn’t things that some see as wrongdoing be relevant?

So you think that a disagreement with a homosexual group is grounds for removing the Archbishop of San Francisco ?

 

[SMGS127]

I wouldn’t have a problem signing such an oath. Why couldn’t they? Is it because they could not honestly agree that they supported Church doctrine? If you have a copy of the oath, I can sign it today. I do support and agree with Church doctrine. It doesn’t matter because Calgm wasn’t important enough for them to affirm in writing what they say they believe.

It’s signing a simple piece of paper that outlines what you already claim you believe. Seriously? That’s a big imposition?

The downside for the Church, without them affirming their Catholic beliefs, is being stabbed in the back by a Church endorsed association.

The Bishop did the right thing.

The oath isn’t the imposition here. It’s the IMPLICATION behind the oath. They aren’t protesting the oath. They’re protesting the idea that they alone are untrustworthy entirely because they use the terminologies “gay” and “lesbian.”

Again, if my priest forbade me from receiving communion because I was an out lesbian unless I signed an oath, and required no one else in the entire Church to do so, I would refuse and find another Church to go to. Gays and lesbians should not be treated like this in the Church.

 

[Dawnia]

The oath isn’t the imposition here. It’s the IMPLICATION behind the oath. They aren’t protesting the oath. They’re protesting the idea that they alone are untrustworthy entirely because they use the terminologies “gay” and “lesbian.”

Again, if my priest forbade me from receiving communion because I was an out lesbian unless I signed an oath, and required no one else in the entire Church to do so, I would refuse and find another Church to go to. Gays and lesbians should not be treated like this in the Church.

Communion is a tad different then the politics of which groups a Diocese promotes or doesn’t promote, don’t you think?