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

[TarkanAttila]

Me too.

Another sig.

 

[SMGS127]

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

When the Archbishop is willing to shake hands with the FRC (an anti-gay hate group that accuses gay people of worshipping pedophiles as the head of a “new world order!”) but unwilling to recommend an orthodox LGBT support group in the Church over an unfair distrust, I think it is a relevant example.

Distrust is distrust, regardless of intentions (and as I’ve said, I firmly believe he has good intentions). LGBT people are easy targets in the Church, and I support any effort to stop this.

 

[St_Pancake]

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.

Did the oath say they couldn’t use “Gay and Lesbian”? The story didn’t say that.

I would sign the oath today. They wouldn’t. Do you really want to defend that?

Either they were honest enough to not want to lie on the oath or the cause wasn’t important to them. Which makes me wonder why it’s so important to you when it wasn’t important enough to them to affirm what you claim they already believe.

The Bishop did the right thing.

 

[SMGS127]

Did the oath say they couldn’t use “Gay and Lesbian”? The story didn’t way that.

I would sign the oath today. They wouldn’t. Do you really want to defend that?

Either they were honest enough to not want to lie on the oath or their cause wasn’t important to them. Which makes me wonder why it’s so important to you when it wasn’t important enough to them to affirm what you claim they already believe.

The Bishop did the right thing.

The oath did not say that. But their refusal to stop using the words “gay” or “lesbian” is why they were singled out by the Archbishop for the oath.

If a Catholic group for African-Americans was singled out to sign an oath, but all the predominately-white Catholic groups weren’t forced to, would you similarly be okay with that?

Again, the objection is not to the oath! Gays and lesbians should not be treated like traitorous dirt like this!

The Bishop did the wrong thing by a thousand miles.

 

[St_Pancake]

The oath did not say that. But their refusal to stop using the words “gay” or “lesbian” is why they were singled out by the Archbishop for the oath.

If a Catholic group for African-Americans was singled out to sign an oath, but all the predominately-white Catholic groups weren’t forced to, would you similarly be okay with that?

Again, the objection is not to the oath! Gays and lesbians should not be treated like traitorous dirt like this!

The Bishop did the wrong thing by a thousand miles.

If they wanted to be referred by the Catholic Church, (under her umbrella) and the powers that be said to sign an oath, then fine.

I would still sign the oath today. Would you not be willing to affirm in writing what you do and do not believe? Why not? You say x but your not willing to sign something that you believe x. Why not?

This isn’t the fault of the Church, it’s the fault of the board. The Bishop did the right thing and I thank God that he did.

 

[SMGS127]

If they wanted to be referred by the Catholic Church, (under her umbrella) and the powers that be said to sign an oath, then fine.

I would still sign the oath today. Would you not be willing to affirm in writing what you do and do not believe? Why not? You say x but your not willing to sign something that you believe x. Why not?

If I were asked, in the context of a request, to sign an oath that would be asked of anyone in my situation, I would happily sign. If I were asked to sign an oath declaring loyalty to the Church based on distrust over my gender or sexual orientation, I would tear it up and walk out the door.

This isn’t the fault of the Church, it’s the fault of the board. The Bishop did the right thing and I thank God that he did.

I will forever disagree with you on this. I do not believe that it is a Catholic action to force all blacks to sign an oath but not whites. Or all women but not men. Or all youth but not adults. Or all out gays but not straights (or closeted gays). Or the handicapped but not the abled. Distrust based on personal unchosen bodily traits is ridiculous and un-Catholic.

I am not lesser than you because I am a lesbian. And I will not legitimize ANYONE’S treatment of gays or lesbians as lesser or less-trusted Catholics.

 

[St_Pancake]

If I were asked, in the context of a request, to sign an oath that would be asked of anyone in my situation, I would happily sign. If I were asked to sign an oath declaring loyalty to the Church based on distrust over my gender or sexual orientation, I would tear it up and walk out the door.

I will forever disagree with you on this. I do not believe that it is a Catholic action to force all blacks to sign an oath but not whites. Or all women but not men. Or all youth but not adults. Or all out gays but not straights (or closeted gays). Or the handicapped but not the abled. Distrust based on personal unchosen bodily traits is ridiculous and un-Catholic.

I am not lesser than you because I am a lesbian. And I will not legitimize ANYONE’S treatment of gays or lesbians as lesser or less-trusted Catholics.

Did I say you were lesser? NO, I did not. I just don’t have a problem putting in writing what I believe. That is the problem here. Those that wouldn’t sign that they believed what you claim they do. I’m not the problem, that board is the problem.

Again, I would sign the oath today because I have no fear of putting my confidence in the Church in writing. You are (gently) using this and other things to defame this Bishop.

 

[SMGS127]

Did I say you were lesser? NO, I did not. I just don’t have a problem putting in writing what I believe. That is the problem here. Those that wouldn’t sign that they believed what you claim they do.

Again, I would sign the oath today because I have no fear of putting my confidence in the Church in writing. You are (gently) using this and other things to defame this Bishop.

I have, multiple times, said that I believe the Archbishop has good intentions. But his actions are still not in accordance with his position.

They are not saying that they don’t believe what the oath says. In fact, they said in their letter that they DO believe in the oath. But they will not play the game where they are a lesser group of people less deserving of trust and respect. I fully support CALGM’s board’s protest of their mistreatment.

 

[St_Pancake]

I have, multiple times, said that I believe the Archbishop has good intentions. But his actions are still not in accordance with his position.

They are not saying that they don’t believe what the oath says. In fact, they said in their letter that they DO believe in the oath. But they will not play the game where they are a lesser group of people less deserving of trust and respect. I fully support CALGM’s board’s protest of their mistreatment.

I fully support the Church in attempting to protect themselves from an association that refused to put their supposed beliefs in writing.

The mistreatment is only in the mind.

 

[St_Pancake]

I have, multiple times, said that I believe the Archbishop has good intentions. But his actions are still not in accordance with his position.

They are not saying that they don’t believe what the oath says. In fact, they said in their letter that they DO believe in the oath. But they will not play the game where they are a lesser group of people less deserving of trust and respect. I fully support CALGM’s board’s protest of their mistreatment.

The DO believe in the oath but won’t sign the oath? lol

 

[SMGS127]

I fully support the Church in attempting to protect themselves from an association that refused to put their supposed beliefs in writing.

The mistreatment is only in the mind.

Non-sequitur. They did put their faith in the Church in writing. They did so in numerous letters and statements. I will never support any member of the Church engaging in a witch hunt on a gay or lesbian group, requesting members to resign immediately if they have friends who are active sinners, pushing oath after oath on them out of a mistrust that won’t go away no matter how much they give in to every demand.

 

[SMGS127]

The DO believe in the oath but won’t sign the oath? lol

Would you oppose a black organization who refused to sign an oath to the Catholic Church because it was made clear that their blackness was the only reason why they were required to sign it?

 

[St_Pancake]

Non-sequitur. They did put their faith in the Church in writing. They did so in numerous letters and statements. I will never support any member of the Church engaging in a witch hunt on a gay or lesbian group, requesting members to resign immediately if they have friends who are active sinners, pushing oath after oath on them out of a mistrust that won’t go away no matter how much they give in to every demand.

They wouldn’t sign an oath affirming their beliefs. That’s the issue. That isn’t a witch hunt.

Any harm caused was by the board. They had a way to take care of this.

The Church did the right thing. This Bishop did the right thing. The Pope put the correct Bishop in charge.

 

[St_Pancake]

Would you oppose a black organization who refused to sign an oath to the Catholic Church because it was made clear that their blackness was the only reason why they were required to sign it?

That isn’t what we are discussing. We are discussing a board for a 501(c)3 that wasn’t willing to agree in writing what it is that you say they believe. (I don’t think they agree, thus their reason for not signing).

I would sign it today but then I don’t have a need to be a victim.

You hurt my feelings so therefore, I’m going to torpedo a necessary relationship over my refusal to back up my beliefs in writing. Defending that must be embarrassing.

 

[SMGS127]

They wouldn’t sign an oath affirming their beliefs. That’s the issue. That isn’t a witch hunt.

Any harm caused was by the board. They had a way to take care of this.

The Church did the right thing. This Bishop did the right thing. The Pope put the correct Bishop in charge.

I’m done with this discussion.

I don’t believe in black people, gay people, women, etc. being distrusted based on their personal traits. I believe in peaceful protests in the Church if this mistreatment is directed their way.

The Church was not involved. The Bishop did the wrong thing. The Bishop is not good for the area. Period, end of story.

I will not be involved in this discussion anymore. Seeing people defend distrust against gays and lesbians based solely on their sexual orientation just reminds me of the dark areas that are still extremely prevalent in the Church. To quote CALGM, I will be glad when being openly gay is no longer shameful in the Church.

 

[St_Pancake]

I’m done with this discussion.

I don’t believe in black people, gay people, women, etc. being distrusted based on their personal traits. I believe in peaceful protests in the Church if this mistreatment is directed their way.

The Church was not involved. The Bishop did the wrong thing. The Bishop is not good for the area. Period, end of story.

I will not be involved in this discussion anymore. Seeing people defend distrust against gays and lesbians based solely on their sexual orientation just reminds me of the dark areas that are still extremely prevalent in the Church. To quote CALGM, I will be glad when being openly gay is no longer shameful in the Church.

At least you gone from gently defaming him to being obvious about it. The Bishop, in this case, is the Church.

Have a good day!

 

[sps49]

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.*

At least I am not the only one working weekends.

Do you believe that political pressure to remove the Archbishop is appropriate, and if you do, then what exactly will be the bar for future political actions? In other words, are there rules other than a mob-style Athenian democratic solution?

 

[SMGS127]

At least I am not the only one working weekends.

Do you believe that political pressure to remove the Archbishop is appropriate, and if you do, then what exactly will be the bar for future political actions? In other words, are there rules other than a mob-style Athenian democratic solution?

No, political pressure is inappropriate. The Bishop should be relocated, because he is inappropriate for the area, but the lobbying should be within Church channels, not in an article aimed at public defamation of his character. Public defamation of a Bishop is never appropriate.

 

[Havard]

I’m done with this discussion.

I don’t believe in black people, gay people, women, etc. being distrusted based on their personal traits. I believe in peaceful protests in the Church if this mistreatment is directed their way.

The Church was not involved. The Bishop did the wrong thing. The Bishop is not good for the area. Period, end of story.

I will not be involved in this discussion anymore. Seeing people defend distrust against gays and lesbians based solely on their sexual orientation just reminds me of the dark areas that are still extremely prevalent in the Church. To quote CALGM, I will be glad when being openly gay is no longer shameful in the Church.

Okay so I will openly admit to glossing over most of the CALGM posts.

But I just did a Google search, namely, “CALGM Cordileone”, and one of the first hits says this:

“Bishop Cordileone had identified a number of concerns about CALGM after undertaking an in-depth review of the group’s activities. He noted that the group’s members frequently criticized Church teaching regarding human sexuality, as did speakers at CALGM events. Bishop Cordileone had asked the group’s leader to make a public affirmation of Church teaching.”

Was this disproven somewhere? Because if not, it sounds like the basis for the oath was prior conduct.

 

[St_Pancake]

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.

by the way, thanks for this link. I wanted fuller understanding on the issue and your link was a great start.