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

[SMGS127]

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.

The “criticism” was a request that language be changed from “disordered” to a tone that youth would understand better (and that wouldn’t sound as an attack on the gay kid themselves). They also criticized the placement of homosexuality next to rape and prostitution.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12911100&postcount=134

^ for more information

 

[sps49]

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.

What is the litmus test then, what makes San Francisco so unique that it requires special consideration; does its citizens sin more, or less, or differently than Chicago, Atlanta, Nome or New York? The more I look at this, the more it begins to resemble a struggle for power, but that is my perception. None of the articles you graciously linked on post #58 gave me the impression that the Archbishop is inappropriate for his present, or past positions. By your lights yes, but not by mine.

 

[SMGS127]

What is the litmus test then, what makes San Francisco so unique that it requires special consideration; does its citizens sin more, or less, or differently than Chicago, Atlanta, Nome or New York? The more I look at this, the more it begins to resemble a struggle for power, but that is my perception. None of the articles you graciously linked on post #58 gave me the impression that the Archbishop is inappropriate for his present, or past positions. By your lights yes, but not by mine.

The actions of the Archbishop towards the LGBT community show a lack of ability (though, as I’ve said, I do not believe for lack of care) to communicate properly or evangelize properly with the LGBT community. As the biggest evangelization need in San Francisco is the LGBT community, I do not support him being there. I also would not support him in DC, another LGBT hotspot. Perhaps in an area of sinners who aren’t LGBT? An area he understands how to communicate better with?

 

[sps49]

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

That was actually from SMGS127, post number 58 of this thread. I looked back after we had an exchange and discovered that he originated it.

 

[St_Pancake]

That was actually from SMGS127, post number 58 of this thread. I looked back after we had an exchange and discovered that he originated it.

Regardless, I’m glad you reposted it. I went back pretty far in the thread this morning looking for such a link and didn’t find any. I’m glad your search was more fruitful and that you posted it too.

 

[sps49]

The actions of the Archbishop towards the LGBT community show a lack of ability (though, as I’ve said, I do not believe for lack of care) to communicate properly or evangelize properly with the LGBT community. As the biggest evangelization need in San Francisco is the LGBT community, I do not support him being there. I also would not support him in DC, another LGBT hotspot. Perhaps in an area of sinners who aren’t LGBT? An area he understands how to communicate better with?

Truthfully, I am not particularly persuaded by that argument. I completely understand the argument, but I am not sold on it in this case. You do see the problem inherent with this solution, right? How do you convince Rome that you want an Archbishop worthy of your attention, with out it sounding like “those other guys” aren’t good enough? Is the problem with communicating, or listening?

 

[SMGS127]

Truthfully, I am not particularly persuaded by that argument. I completely understand the argument, but I am not sold on it in this case. You do see the problem inherent with this solution, right? How do you convince Rome that you want an Archbishop worthy of your attention, with out it sounding like “those other guys” aren’t good enough? Is the problem with communicating, or listening?

I just feel that an Archbishop has to have a very good skill at communicating with the population within their diocese. Considering the sizable LGBT population in SF, any Archbishop there should have to be able to communicate with gays, lesbians, and transgender individuals in an effective manner. Clearly, he isn’t doing very well at it. But his predecessor had no problems with it. The difference between the two styles is so drastic that the effects are clearly seen in the clashing that has accompanied Archbishop Cordileone.

 

[Havard]

The “criticism” was a request that language be changed from “disordered” to a tone that youth would understand better (and that wouldn’t sound as an attack on the gay kid themselves). They also criticized the placement of homosexuality next to rape and prostitution.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12911100&postcount=134

^ for more information

Thanks SMGS. Again, apologies if I’m retreading old material here, but some of the other links in my simple search suggest that open dissenters having director/board seats in local CALGM groups.

 

[SMGS127]

Thanks SMGS. Again, apologies if I’m retreading old material here, but some of the other links in my simple search suggest that open dissenters having director/board seats in local CALGM groups.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are. There are also heretical Catholic dioceses. Do these invalidate the teaching of the Church or Her commitment to Her doctrine?

 

[Pulvis]

From what i have read, the Archbishop has communicated to all concerned. He has communicated the Faith, in it’s fullness. It seems to me that therin lies the real problem. The disenters are simply not hearing what they wnat to hear. So they will stomp and rant like 5 year olds attempting to get their way. Actually the response from the homosexual lobby and the parents and educators come as no surprise this day and time. After 40 to 50 years of poor catechesis and liberal parish committees, none of these reactiojs surprise me. Personally i wish for more Bishops like Archbishop Cordileone.

 

[Cactus]

This is the fruit of giving “prominent” Catholics a pass over the years allowing for public dissent from the Faith. I would like to see the Pope drop the hammer on dissenters and get the bishops in line. Then these dissenters will be referred to as “prominent former Catholics”.

 

[sps49]

The actions of the Archbishop towards the LGBT community show a lack of ability (though, as I’ve said, I do not believe for lack of care) to communicate properly or evangelize properly with the LGBT community. As the biggest evangelization need in San Francisco is the LGBT community, I do not support him being there. I also would not support him in DC, another LGBT hotspot. Perhaps in an area of sinners who aren’t LGBT? An area he understands how to communicate better with?

This is how Archbishop Niederauer was initially accepted December 16, 2005:
sfgate.com/news/article/A-NEW-ARCHBISHOP-FOR-S-F-VIEWS-Tolerant-2588052.php

By December 4, 2008:
sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-archbishop-defends-role-in-Prop-8-passage-3182424.php

Another story of his ministry on December 23, 2011
sfgate.com/news/article/Gay-friendly-clergy-disinvited-from-Castro-church-2421927.php

It looks like Archbishop Niederauer was also a target of some of the LGBT community’s ire, after the transition wore off. That’s why I asked the question: Is the problem with communicating, or listening? The question was not directed solely at the Archbishop, but includes the other parties involved with the communications.

 

[adawgj]

My only issue with the Archbishop was the drunk driving incident, but he does seem to mean business. However, he will have to evangelize the dissenters somehow.

 

[Havard]

My only issue with the Archbishop was the drunk driving incident, but he does seem to mean business. However, he will have to evangelize the dissenters somehow.

The drunk driving incident was very regrettable, but I don’t doubt for a second that it was a case of underestimating how much he’d had. I mean, he was with his own elderly mother, I really doubt he would have gotten behind the wheel if he was aware of how many times his wine glass had been topped off. Again, I’m not defending it, but I think it’s a mistake a lot of good people could easily make.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Go take a poll on SFgate’s website about whether archbishop Cordileone should be removed. I was shocked (happily shocked) that 86% have said he should stay because he should uphold Catholic teaching!

Goes to show the whole controversy is a vocal minority of dissidents.

Take the poll: blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2015/04/17/take-the-weekly-poll-time-for-archbishop-cordileone-to-go/

Also go to Life Site News and sign the petition to keep the archbishop. It only takes a second.

lifesitenews.com/petitions/i-stand-with-archbishop-cordileone

 

[Jon_S_1]

The actions of the Archbishop towards the LGBT community show a lack of ability (though, as I’ve said, I do not believe for lack of care) to communicate properly or evangelize properly with the LGBT community. As the biggest evangelization need in San Francisco is the LGBT community, I do not support him being there. I also would not support him in DC, another LGBT hotspot. Perhaps in an area of sinners who aren’t LGBT? An area he understands how to communicate better with?

The problem is the LGBT community will not be happy unless the church affirms their sinful choices. You can only do so much but the church is never going to say “your behavior is not sinful”.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

From what i have read, the Archbishop has communicated to all concerned. He has communicated the Faith, in it’s fullness. It seems to me that therin lies the real problem. The disenters are simply not hearing what they wnat to hear. So they will stomp and rant like 5 year olds attempting to get their way. Actually the response from the homosexual lobby and the parents and educators come as no surprise this day and time. After 40 to 50 years of poor catechesis and liberal parish committees, none of these reactiojs surprise me. Personally i wish for more Bishops like Archbishop Cordileone.

Exactly.

There is really no way any Archbishop could appease these people and still remain true to the Church. It is NOT a communication problem, it IS a listening problem.

Pope Benedict knew full well what he was doing when he transferred Cordileone to Oakland and then promoted him to the San Francisco post. He put Cordileone into the pit of vipers. As soon as I read about the appointment, it was very easy to see the confrontations coming from afar.

 

[Tomdstone]

The drunk driving incident was very regrettable, but I don’t doubt for a second that it was a case of underestimating how much he’d had. I mean, he was with his own elderly mother, I really doubt he would have gotten behind the wheel if he was aware of how many times his wine glass had been topped off. Again, I’m not defending it, but I think it’s a mistake a lot of good people could easily make.

But drunk driving is an extremely serious offense since it puts the lives of innocent children at risk.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But drunk driving is an extremely serious offense since it puts the lives of innocent children at risk.

So does going 30mph in a school zone or not stopping when a bus has its red lights on the other side of the road. Or a million other things.

I am not defending drunk driving, but just think most people don’t realize how little it takes to get to 0.08% BAC. Way before you feel “buzzed”. Often 1-2 drinks will get you there.

So just offering education. It’s best to drink zero and drive.

 

[Tomdstone]

So does going 30mph in a school zone or not stopping when a bus has its red lights on the other side of the road. Or a million other things.

I am not defending drunk driving, but just think most people don’t realize how little it takes to get to 0.08% BAC. Way before you feel “buzzed”. Often 1-2 drinks will get you there.

So just offering education. It’s best to drink zero and drive.

Well, my personal opinion is that you should not drink and drive. Is it not a mortal sin to recklessly endanger the life of an innocent child?