M
mark_a
Guest
Anyone?
Quite the contrary. In fact, Archbishop Levada has firmly opposed this idea. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter. Once you read it, you can witness Archbishop Levada’s brilliance and his unwavering faith:I have read that Archbishop Levada extended spousal benefits to gay “partners” of employees within the Archdiocese. Is there any truth to this?
In late 1996, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring entities contracting with the city [San Francisco] – profit and nonprofit alike – to extend health insurance and other spousal benefits to registered lesbian, gay or unmarried “domestic partners,” a category created under a 1990 referendum. Levada requested that Catholic agencies be exempted from the requirement, claiming it created a “problem of conscience” regarding Catholic teachings on homosexual activity.
“This requirement,” Levada argued, “amounted to government coercion of a church to compromise its own beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and seemed to violate the First Amendment protection guaranteed to religion by our Constitution.”
A point of curiosity: Did the good Archbishop’s arguments carry the day?Quite the contrary. In fact, Archbishop Levada has firmly opposed this idea. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter. Once you read it, you can witness Archbishop Levada’s brilliance and his unwavering faith:
Quote:
Originally Posted by National catholic Reporter
*In late 1996, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring entities contracting with the city [San Francisco] – profit and nonprofit alike – to extend health insurance and other spousal benefits to registered lesbian, gay or unmarried “domestic partners,” a category created under a 1990 referendum. Levada requested that Catholic agencies be exempted from the requirement, claiming it created a “problem of conscience” regarding Catholic teachings on homosexual activity.
“This requirement,” Levada argued, “amounted to government coercion of a church to compromise its own beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and seemed to violate the First Amendment protection guaranteed to religion by our Constitution.”*
The case was taken to the California State Supreme Court, where the court unfortunately ruled against the Archdiocese. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and I haven’t been aware of any rulings by the USSC on this issue yet.A point of curiosity: Did the good Archbishop’s arguments carry the day?
Actually, an American is a logical choice because Levada has first hand experience in dealing with the sexual scandal; the S. Francisco Archdiocese dealt with several sex abuse claims over the past few years, with claims of abuse going back 30-40 years. Levada is an excellent choice.Hard to imagine an American in the job, but who knows.
Thanks, that definitely puts my mind at ease, whether or not he was successful in convincing the courts.Quite the contrary. In fact, Archbishop Levada has firmly opposed this idea. The following is from the National Catholic Reporter. Once you read it, you can witness Archbishop Levada’s brilliance and his unwavering faith:
Caution:Official Vatican announcement:
abcdefg said:Caution:
that’s not the vatican site. it’s the work of a con artist
official vatican’s ip is 212.77.1.243
212.77.1.243/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d3_en.htm
has nothing to do with Levada
if you open both 212.77.1.243/phome_en.htm and 212.77.1.245/phome_en.htmthe 243 one says “Search on site” and the 245 one says “new search engine” however if you click on it , then else where, the 245 one changes to “Search on site”
if you move your mouse over the alpha and omega sign in the real site the icon changes to “the liturgical year” however on the phony site it doesn’t change, so are other icons
if you ping www.vatican.va it directs you to 243. there’s no need to create a similar but still different site to cause confusionBoth of the indicated servers belong to the Vatican.