Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
“Something is telling me it isn't right" ...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
Online Bachelor’s Degree program in business. Accelerated MBA program.
New Video. The Persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico in the 1920's.
Be Aware! Your loved ones need your help in nursing homes.
CLASSIFIED ADS
Announcement - The Importance of Faith in our Lives: Whether it was resentment, anger, divor...(read more)
Announcement - Truth & Triumph: The Alliance Defense Fund introduces a new "online magazine...(read more)
Altar servers are needed for the Latin Tridentine Mass (Extraordinary Form), in Akron, Ohio....(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
El Cajon/La Mesa - A Mission on the Work of the Holy Angels: Preached by Fr. Titus...(read more)
San Diego/Scripps Ranch Area" Marriage is on trial in the state of California..read more)
San Diego - Mother of Life Conference: Presented by The Knights of Columbus, San Diego Chapt...(read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
“Ban on public prayers” I wonder if the ritual of beheading religious or other Chris... [JLS - 7/30/2010 11:17:27 PM]
“Inappropriate subject matter” When I was a kid, we formed up little posse groups for vario... [JLS - 7/30/2010 11:03:48 PM]
“The Holy Father's reflections on the central mysteries of our faith” THE HOLY FATHER has been under such "uninformed" attacks rec... [NUTUNE - 7/30/2010 10:11:02 PM]
Priest pay in San Jose jon, you're simply hooked by the system. Here is what I am ... [JLS - 7/30/2010 8:23:23 PM]
“Getting emails from Catholics” The word, "judge", seems to have a hidden meaning that only ... [JLS - 7/30/2010 6:24:11 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

“Poisonous tenor”

San Francisco ‘gay pride’ group votes to dishonor archbishop at behest of Most Holy Redeemer parishioner


At the urging of a member of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee has voted to dishonor Archbishop George Niederauer with a “Pink Brick” award for causing “significant harm to the LGBT community.”

The decision was spurred by Matt Dorsey, a member of the Parish Council at San Francisco's ‘gay friendly’ Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church. In an opinion piece written for the homosexual-oriented newspaper Bay Area Reporter, Dorsey objected to the original decision by the Pride Celebration Committee to award the Pink Brick to dethroned Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Dorsey said “we need not have looked beyond our own city limits: San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer” in a column published under the headline “Niederauer deserves Pink Brick.”

The Pride Celebration Committee announced on June 15 that its members had reconsidered their decision and decided to award a second Pink Brick to the archbishop. “The Pink Brick is given each year to a person or institution that has caused significant harm to the LGBT community,” said the Bay Area Reporter.

Archbishop Niederauer was singled out for his support last year of Proposition 8, the successful initiative constitutional amendment adopted by voters restricting marriage to between one man and one woman and later upheld by the California Supreme Court. "We hope that with this Pink Brick, we can educate the community about Archbishop Niederauer's work to deny LGBT couples equal protection under the law,” Mikayla Connell, president of the Pride Celebration Committee told the Reporter. “Archbishop Niederauer's support of Proposition 8, which is not representative of all faith communities or even of all Catholics, has only served to harm LGBT families, many of whom are Catholic themselves."

Connell’s comments echoed sentiments expressed by Dorsey in his column urging the Pride Committee to single out the archbishop. “Having served for 11 years as the Catholic bishop of Salt Lake City prior to coming to San Francisco, Niederauer leveraged his close ties to national Mormon leaders last June when he wrote to officials of the Church of Latter-day Saints, urging them to play an active role in the fight to pass Prop 8,” wrote Dorsey. “And play an active role they did: by most estimates, Mormons accounted for more than half of the $40 million spent in support of the anti-gay amendment.”

Dorsey also attacked the Archdiocese of San Francisco for “the poisonous tenor” of campaign materials provided under the auspices of the archdiocese in support of Proposition 8. “Clearly, no one expected Archbishop Niederauer to break with the Vatican on the issue of marriage equality,” wrote Dorsey. “But few were prepared for the spiritual leader of 400,000 Bay Area Catholics to offer the imprimatur of our church to such dishonest, divisive and deliberately hurtful rhetoric.”

According to the web site of Most Holy Redeemer Church, Dorsey is a member of the nine-person Parish Pastoral Council, charged with “responding to the needs of parishioners by proposing pastoral initiatives, policies, and programs, or themes in cooperation with the Pastor, pastoral staff and relevant archdiocesan resources and ministries.” The council also meets twice a year with the Parish Finance Committee “to review the financial condition of the parish and consult regarding the annual budget.”

According to a biography posted on the Most Holy Redeemer web site, Dorsey has been a parishioner since 2004. His past activities have included organizing the parish’s contingent to annual ‘gay pride’ parades, and arranging a parish presence at the annual Castro Street Fair. Dorsey is employed as communications director for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.

Most Holy Redeemer, located in the city’s Castro District, has repeatedly made news over the years for its homosexual-friendly activities: it is the parish where Archbishop Niederauer gave Communion to two transvestites dressed as nuns in 2007 (the archbishop later apologized), the parish where the same group of transvestite “nuns” – the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence – once held bingo games to raise money until they were kicked out on orders of the chancery in 2006, and the parish that regularly sends a contingent to San Francisco “gay pride” parade until ordered by the archdiocese to stop participating in the event. According Jesuit Fr. Donal Godfrey, currently director of university ministry at the University of San Francisco, the parish is where the so-called “rainbow flag,” the banner of the homosexual-rights movement, was invented.

In early January, vandals spray-painted swastikas and the message “Niederauer, Ratzinger – where is the love” on the front walls of Most Holy Redeemer. Fr. Steve Meriwether, the pastor at Most Holy Redeemer, told KCBS news at the time that his parishioners “actually share the vandals' sentiment against Prop 8.”


READER COMMENTS

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 4:23 AM By Richard Flores
It is unfortunate that these extremists characterize everything based upon one, controversial topic! There are many gays that also opposed Prop. 8 for many reasons! The problem lies with the challenge of civil versus sacramental marriage. As with so many other issues, the truth is not with the extremists. I praise the Archbishop for having the guts to stand for truth when so many are cowards! If you are not being criticized, you are not accomplishing anything!

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 5:02 AM By Observant
Pray for these poor people. They are so mixed up and mad at their fathers. The Father will not give up on them.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 5:27 AM By ellen
Dorsey needs to be immediately dismissed from Parish Council.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 5:38 AM By St. Christopher
Most Holy Redeemer should be a beacon to the lost of the homosexual community. In that role, MHR should be solidly orthodox and traditional. By pandering, at least historically, to the homosexual activists, MHR clergy and its council have only encouraged sinful behavior; after all, salvation, not political niceness, is what the Church is supposed to be about. Parish councils are likewise a foolish and misdirected artifact of Vatican II, but if there must be one at MHR, then Matt Dorsey must be replaced. All council members serve at the pleasure of the pastor and he must dismiss someone that has been behind such scandalous behavior. Be a beacon and people will be saved, far more than MHR will cause to alter their lives than is presently the case.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 6:17 AM By Mary Jo
I would like to make two points. First, I think that Archbishop Niederauer should accept the "Pink Brick" award and consider it as a left handed compliment for having the pure guts -- the integrity to stand up for Church teaching. I fully support the Archbishop's actions and commend him for all that he did. Second, I think that Mr. Dorsey should be removed from his post on the Parish Council! Thank you Archbishop Niederauer for your moral guidance and spiritual leadership!

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 7:38 AM By David
Man. The Bay Area is the worst area in the country to be a devout and orthodox Catholic. I think more exorcists need to be planted on there.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 7:44 AM By Dana
It is hardly a dishonor to receive a pink brick, considering its source and purpose. The reason these people condemn others for being intolerant nazis is they fear those traits in themselves (for good reason). I hope Archbishop Niederauer accepts it with good humor and grace, and that these mean-spirited bullies feel some unaccustomed shame.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 8:36 AM By Fr. J
The Archbishop must have done something wonderful to earn the hatred of such vile people.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 8:55 AM By hosemonkey
"Pink brick" = badge of honor. Abp. Niederauer must be doing his job. As for parish councils, abolish 'em.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:04 AM By ted
This is more proof that those who define their very selves in terms of their sex life simply are not in any way normal people.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:07 AM By Life Lady
Wow, a pink brick, for a good and holy man doing his best to fulfill his responsibilities as the archbishop of San Francisco, it give me pause... Actually I hope the good archbishop accepts this award with all the grace and goodness he displayed in supporting Prop 8, and smiles thru it. If they have a formal awards ceremony he should accept it, and say a few words, give a nice homily on the dignity and respect that every person deserves, and to reiterate that the Church loves their children, especially those who are suffering with same-sex attraction. Agree that MHR should not pander to their confused children, but re-direct them toward the Blessed Sacrament. They should have rosary hours for them, and benediction services that are quiet and reverent. They can't reach anyone in all that chaos. Finally, Mr. Dorsey should be given a personal retreat. He needs a good Miles Christi retreat to help him think about the direction he appears to be going in. Hopefully he will come to an understanding that criticism of the good archbishop is misguided, and reverse his behavior.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:16 AM By Patti
to David - Have heart! Agreed, while the Bay Area can be considered a terrible place to be a devout Catholic, we are told, "where sin abounds, grace abounds more" (Rom 5:20). God will give us what we need to witness and bring people to Him. Let's use our examples to bring people to Christ, and pray for all His people.... living in the Bay Area sure shows me there are many needs for prayer!

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:17 AM By Cy
The "brick" or "the Rock?" I'll take the Rock, thank you.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:28 AM By Elaine
The vandals are asking "Where's the love?" Maybe the love is in guiding them for the salvation of their souls, instead of pandering to their sexual appetites.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:44 AM By Anne T.
God bless, Archbishop Nierderaur for having the courage and virtue to speak the truth. I am so discouraged at what is going on in the Church now that he is one of the lights at the end of the tunnel.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 10:13 AM By JLS
The pastor is authorized to disband the entire parish council.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 10:54 AM By betty
I agree with you, ellen. What is a man like Dorsey doing on the Parish Council?

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 11:32 AM By Maggie
Score 1 for the archbishop! What an honor! I hope he continues to earn their wrath because it will mean that he is courageously doing the right thing.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 11:40 AM By Dan
Take it as a badge of honor, Excellency. They hate you because you told them the truth. Our Lord experienced all this long ago and promised his followers they would also. So you are in good company.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 11:53 AM By John
Good for the archbishop for not abandoning God's principles in favor of the relativism that is destroying our society. All men are subject to urges and desires that are contrary to the teachings and commandments of God. Men are born with the desire to have multiple sexual partners or same-sex attraction, God has commanded us to overcome these desires. Just because we fail to obey his commandments because they are difficult doesn't mean we should set our own standards. Mr. Dorsey, obviously, believes that he can create God in his own image and after his own desires. Unfortunately, truth does not cease to be truth because you don't like it. Dorsey and others who disagree with the teachings should leave the Catholic Church rather than trying to force the Church to accept their contemporary and relative moral standards. I applaud the Archbishop and hope that there are more people with the courage to be resolute in their standars.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 12:10 PM By Tom P.
This is an earnest question, not a polemic: Why do homosexuals have organizations with the word "pride" in the name? I mean, why would anyone be "proud" to be a homosexual? I'm not "proud" to be a heterosexual; that is, I don't let my sexuality define me. Why do those who are attracted to members of the same sex let their sexuality define them? Aren't there more important things which should define us, such as our relationship to God, our vocations, avocations, occupations, pastimes, etc.?

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 12:15 PM By LOT
God Bless Archbishop Niederauer. What kind of nonsense and sacriledge is being perpetrated! These people have the audacity to grossly misrepresent Church teaching and to try to overturn the natural law using Catholic auspices. Shut the place down!!!

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 12:36 PM By PATRICK
HOW DO I GET A PINK BRICK? I CAN'T THINK OF ANY AWARD THAT I WOULD RATHER RECEIVE....

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 12:37 PM By june v
At one time I was proud to say I was a third generation native of San Francisco. I no longer admit to that. I don't mention SF just California. How low the city of St. Francis has gone. May God Bless the Bishop.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 2:47 PM By Diane
It's about time that the Bishop offered Holy Redeemer parish the opportunity to buy the building or move out. The Pastor should be stripped of his pastoral duties and no diocesan funds be directed to this group.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 3:44 PM By Mark from PA
Is that true that Archbishop Niederauer used his influence with leaders of the Mormon Church to get them to play an active role in the fight to pass Proposition 8? I have read that the Mormon Church spent many millions of dollars to pass this proposition. If the Archbishop did this it is really an outrage. It is hard for me to understand. It seems to me to be a very divisive thing to do. If the Archbishop wanted to hit up the Mormons for money, why not money to help parents send their children to Catholic schools, or to help unwed moms or hungry childen or the homeless?

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 4:02 PM By Linda Maria
Archbishop Niederauer has the great responsibility to do the work of Christ. He should close forever the doors of Most Holy Redeemer Church, excommunicate Matt Dorsey and many others, and reaffirm strongly the teachings of Christ on Holy Matrimony and the Faith and Morals of our holy Catholic Church. He should immediately implement a strong program for all lay Catholics and clergy, on true, traditional Church teachings, morals, and religious practices and devotions. This will strengthen the spiritual and moral life of our holy Church, its families, and the clergy, protect us against the great evils of Satan and the fallen world, and assist all of us in the great endeavor to work for the Christian's true goal, for which Christ gave His life: Heaven, salvation, and establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth. A Catholic bishop has three basic tasks:1. To teach the people their Catholic Faith and Morals 2. To govern us wisely and properly, according to Christ's doctrine, and no other 3. To sanctify the people and prepare us all for Heaven Our Archbishop has a big responsibility!! So does our Holy Father, in Rome!!

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 4:34 PM By Elizabeth
IT IS MORE THAN OVERTIME....... EITHER GET AN ORTHODOX PRIEST WHO WILL CLEAN THE CHURCH UP..... OR, UNFORUNATELY......CLOSE THE PARISH! THIS HAS GONE FROM BAD TO WORSE!!!!!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:07 PM By Joseph
Ellen, Betty: Mr. Dorsey is on the pastoral council because he is representative of the parish -- and he's not alone. The current secretary of the pastoral council is "married" to another woman. The woman she is "married" to used to be PRESIDENT of the pastoral council. Five current/past members of the pastoral donated to defeat Prop 8, and there are at least seven same-sex "married" persons serving as lectors, eucharistic ministers, acolytes, etc at the parish. Just google "A report on the archdiocese of San Francisco" and select the "Most Holy Redeemer" link.

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 9:10 PM By gravey
Mark from PA says: "Bla, bla , bla, bla..."

Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 11:37 PM By MarkF
I've said many times on here how disingenuous professional homosexuals are, how they lie about what goes on in this lifestyle, how they will do and say anything to protect what truly is a pagan god. And we can see that on here even, when those who constantly seek to promote this darkness hide behind words like "tolerance", and even feign ignorance that the Church supported Proposition 8. I can only hope that those on here will choose to ignore such obvious attempts at deception done in the name of spreading one of the most destructive sins.

Posted Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:07 AM By Paul
What is orthodox is what we read in the Scriptures this week "Love your enemy - do good to those who hate you - if someone slaps you on the cheek....." Followers of Jesus should be more readily measured by the way we follow this commandment of Jesus. But I guess it is easier not to. I feel sorry for those in the gay community who are so fragile that they must seek to destroy others who do not give them what they want. That is clearly unhealthy behavior. Pray for those who hurt us!

Posted Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:59 AM By MARKRITE
Let's hear it for Linda Maria!!! Where have you been, Linda? That was one of the best postings I've read on Calif. Catholic Daily -- she's explicated orthodox Catholic teaching as well or better than most who've written in. In fact, a whole book could be written on the foundation that Linda's presented re the duties of our Catholic Bishops. Maybe you're doing that as we speak/write, Linda. I certainly hope so, & I'll buy it for sure if you do. It's way beyond time for the WHOLE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY to wade into the demonically toxic morass that's become American Kulture, & LAY INTO THE CATHOLIC "FAITHFUL" AND THEIR PARISH PRIESTS and straighten them out as to, especially, the evils of CONTRACEPTION & its way poisonous twin, THE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST OF ABORTION. The game-playing must stop, we need another St. Bonaventure or St. Anthony to rouse the faithful -- GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE

Posted Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:13 PM By Anne T.
Linda Maria, you are absolutely right.

Posted Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:47 AM By Irene
I wouldn't worry too much about being dishonored by members of the LGBT community - actually, I would take a pink brick as a complement - a badge of honor even, for standing up for truth. The evil one (and his followers) hate the truth. Remember what Jesus so clearly told His followers, 'the world will hate you just as they hated Me' . God bless Archbishop Niederauer, and God help Matt Dorsey.

Posted Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:46 PM By Bud
The only attitude one can take to such arrogance and self importance displayed by the gays is "Who Cares?" I can't help but think their control of that parish is just another sham show that they are so good at! And everyone who disagrees with them are bigots and evil......

Posted Sunday, June 21, 2009 4:04 PM By Grisha
Mark fm PA - When Abp Niederauer came here he said he would try to calm the conflict (mainly but not entirely over gay issues) with the city leadership. One thing I remember him saying is we need not get into a situation where everyone thinks they are a victim. He hardly got his bags unpacked before Maurice Healy engineered an artificial crisis over a handful of adoptions of hard to place children with gay couples several years previous. it was old news. At that point our beloved Supes overreacted and we were right back to square one. It was apparently Ned Dojiski's (sp) brilliant idea to ask him to go the Mormons for money to support Prop 8. In my opinion he should have said "Go to them yourself. Here's the phone number." I have great affection for the Archbishop but I'm very disappointed in him.

Posted Sunday, June 21, 2009 11:05 PM By Rev M
If anyone is searching for "poisonous tenor" one only need to read the above comments, and many others posted on this website every time any thing related to LGBT persons and the Catholic Church makes the news. It seems confusing, if not completely hypocritical to carry on about a pink brick for an Archbishop who is also pilloried here for failing to close down MHR, replace the pastor, excommunicate parishioners, etc. Of course those of you who've thrown your stones are without the sin of those waiting to catch the woman in the act of adultery (don't think they weren't looking for the chance to frame her). Perhaps LGBT persons, including LGBT Catholics can teach some of the righteous that we are not "sinners in the hands of an angry God" but are called to love first, only then correct, admonish or judge. There is very little love in the comments on calcatholic.com, but certainly no shortage of condemnation.

Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 7:08 AM By JLS
Rev M, what you're seeing in these posts that you refer to is poison, but the source is the gay agenda, and the reason that you're seeing it here is that the light of God is being shed upon this poison of the devil. And you're onto something with your quote of "Sinners in the hands of an angry God", but you've got it backwards, which explains the confusion you complain about: The gay agenda has put "God in the hands of angry sinners". But like all those who preach "love" by denying the doctrines of Christianity, you bring the confusion down on those who fall for such fragmented teaching.

Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 7:58 AM By sietta
Frankly, I am amazed how these "weasles" get into parish council positions. We also have a "shill" in our parish council. He is very involved with the democrats and was passing out "Obama is pro-life" literature before the election! Can these pastors get a clue? What is the story here? Personally, I think that the tentacles of the Dems sink DEEP in local churches!!!

Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 1:53 PM By gerojoe
More springtime in the Catholic Church

Posted Monday, June 22, 2009 9:53 PM By LOT
Real Christian love and compassion means caring enough to speak the truth and helping people break free from the bondage of ingrained habits of sin. Misrepresenting Church teaching and encouraging people to continue on in homosexual acting out is betrayal. The Catholic Church exists for the salvation of souls not a social club for the damnation of souls. Who will answer for the souls of people who were deceived by the false teaching at MHR, died and may have gone to hell forever??? What does it profit clergy and parishioners if they completely subvert a parish but end up losing their souls??? St Faustina (canonized 2000ad) of the Papally approved Divine Mercy Message was shown hell and she understood that the vast majority of the people there were ones that on earth "did not believe that it existed." When she saw that the demons were actually able to torture and torment the people over and over for their mortal sins she began to pass out.

Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:04 PM By Ron
Looks like a smokescreen to me. The real scandal is that the Bishop allows MHR to keep its doors open.

Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:37 PM By Grisha
sietta: Are you saying that being a Democrat ought to bar someone from being on a parish council? Did you know most American Catholics register as Democrats? G.O.P. doesn't = GOD.

Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:48 PM By JLS
Grisha, why should Catholics, having the truth, enslave themselves to political parties? Jesus teaches us to give to Caesar, not take from Caesar. This means that we give the truth to all political parties, and take no nonsense from any of them in any form be it money or lip.

Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:57 PM By Canisius
Grisha, why do progressives who call themselves Catholics always questions the obvious. Yes if you supported Obama you should be kicked off a council, better yet denied communion. Democrats consistently support abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and support assisted suicide as well. How can you honestly reconcile these facts with that of Catholic teaching?

Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:30 PM By Grisha
Canisius: But it would be OK to support John McCain who is in favor of stem cell research? At some point only Bobby Jindal supporters will be eligible to hold parish offices.

Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:02 PM By JLS
Grisha, Bobby Jindal is championed by the Catholic Caveman.

Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:22 PM By MarkF
Grisha, I agree that once we go down this path, it will be hard to know where to stop. The easy part is to know what to believe. We know to believe that abortion is always wrong, that homosexual relations are always sinful, that we're called to sacrifice ourselves, etc. In our personal lives this is relatively easy to discern what is right and what is wrong, even if it's hard to live up to. But in the act of voting, where often we have a binary choice of one of two candidates, things can get confusing. My belief, which I think is supported by Catholic thought, is that even though McCain was not perfect on abortion, he was clearly better than Obama. The Church tells us to rank the issues on matters of seriousness - with abortion being the most serious issue we have. Global nuclear war, while potentially worse, is still just a possibility while abortion is a reality. I think what you say about how only supporters of Bobby Jindal will be allowed on parish councils is a false dichotomy. It is not who we support, but what we believe as Catholics, and too many Catholics are so poorly catechized that they think that support for leftist causes will mitigate their support for abortion. Look, American politics is a mess. No party is perfect. But many think that the Republican party is more amenable to change, as the Democratic party seems hell bent on the anti-life program of abortion and homosexuality. I don't know if the Republicans are really amenable to change...but it's certain that the Democratic party (at this time) pushes death and homosexuality over life and the family. Perhaps the realities of American politics has pushed the Church too far into the Republican party. But the solution is not to support the Democratic party. And yes, even with neither party being perfect, we can find one candidate who is better on the key issue of abortion. To say that no one is perfect is not the right answer.

Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 10:51 AM By Peter
MarkF - One correction. The Democratic party pushes reproductive health - and in particular women's health - and equality, both of which are consistent with life and the family.

Posted Friday, June 26, 2009 11:28 AM By JLS
Peter: There is nothing in the pro death political camp, which is euphemistically for political vote getting deception called "reproductive health", that is healthy for anybody. All they are trying to do is make homosexual behavior medically stable, abortion a way of life, profligate sex a mainstream of society even among elementary children, and the use of the souls of the unborn, such as in embryonic stem cells, cry out to Heaven for vengeance. You proponents of the Democratic platform of social death are pleading your cause with the voters ... so why don't you plead it with God?

Posted Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:42 PM By MarkF
Peter, why do you limit your definition of equality only to same-sex couples? If you're really for equal access to marriage, you should also support it being truly open to everyone - to incestuous couples, to polygamy, and even to polygamous incestuous couples? Why do you support the hatred for these people? Why the intolerance?

Posted Monday, June 29, 2009 7:39 AM By Peter
Mark F - I am not intolerant of them, I am just not advocating for their interests. If they want to unite and organize, get the criminal penalties legally lifted for their intended relationships, and become politically active in support of their own interests ala "the gay agenda", more power to them. What they do will not affect me; and I have no obligation to them whatsoever. Remember, "you" are the ones who created the false association between the "gay rights movement" and polygamy, bestiality, etc; not the proponents of "gay equality".

Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:42 PM By JLS
Peter, your rhetoric is rife with self centeredness. You speak as though you are not aware of your extreme "individualism", a protestant concoction that reduces God given personality to a servile state ... a collective of individualists, who all espouse the same thing "It's all about me". Haven't you read the lesson about the "Am I my brother's keeper" yet? Good story; read it.

Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:07 PM By Peter
The point, JLS, is that the "gay agenda" regarding marriage has never been about "equal access" to marriage; it has been about "equal access for same-sex consenting adults." As I explained to MarkF, it is "you" who have broadened the scope to include anything and everything (that would hurt the cause). It is not self-centered to be self-invested; there is a difference. A "collective of individualists" coming together for a common cause is otherwise known as a movement (as in civil rights). Yes, it's all about "me" . . . but more specifically, it's not about "you". That's what your so-called "homosexualists" has been trying to say right along. Anything else would be self-defeating.

Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:45 PM By marcum
the Most Holy Redeemer parish in the Castro must be put on probation now with the immediate warning of a one year censure closing to redirect it's future service to the Roman Catholic faith.

Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:04 PM By JLS
Peter, your post demonstrates my point that you see yourself as part of a collective, and without a unique personal identification. The cause of homosexuality is egregiously sinful, extremely debased, and opposes God just as did the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no room in morality for homosexualism; the two being mutually exclusive. If you or any homosexual desires salvation, there is one surefire way to achieve it, and that is through Jesus Christ ... by means of following His commands. But this is your stumbling block; for, following righteous commands from God is something that the homosexual community refuses to do. You, Peter, have a unique identity and you won't find it in homosexualism.

Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:14 PM By MarkF
Peter, while it is I who brought up the subject of polygamy and incest, it is the advocacy of same-sex marriage that naturally and unavoidably brings the issue up. Same-sex marriage has, with one exception, been something that the courts have decided upon based on legal arguments about equal rights for same-sex couples. This in turn is based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and also in part on homosexuals being declared a protected class of people who have been allegedly the subject of discrimination. Against this has been the supporters of traditional marriage whose arguments are just that, based on that pre-existing tradition but also on the right of the majority to define marriage the way it seems fit. Once the courts have nullified the idea that marriage is set, pre-defined tradition of one man and one woman, and once they've taken away who defines marriage from the majority and made it into a civil right, then there will be no way on earth that we will soon have polygamous, incestuous and even polygamous incestuous marriages. Even when I was a fully committed gay man I could see that. What JLS and I are both talking about is how same-sex marriage will hurt this country. Homosexuality itself is dangerous, but what you're supporting will mean 1.) Public indoctrination in the schools. 2.) Bans on free speech. 3.) Forcing orphan kids into unstable homosexual "marriages." 4.) Legalization of incest and polygamy, and perhaps even underage polygamous marriage as is practiced by renegade Mormon groups. This is not just about you as an individual. A pebble dropped in a pond sets out ripples and these are the ripples of same-sex marriage.

Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 5:51 AM By Abeca Christian
Accepting homosexual lifestyles and condoning them has nothing to do with civil rights, no not at all! It is a downfall that this America is starting to embrace, a disgrace and a torturous lifestyle that will only bring fourth consequences that will hurt humanity and it's salvation. One of several great scandals of the soul! By torturous, I am speaking spiritually, because in due time this society will see the hurt and evils that it brings as a whole and how it affects and destroys the purity and beauty of true love. Ultimately leading many human souls to the burning fires of hell. Yes people it may sound deep and crazy but it is not. What a sick society we live in because we are now seeing the outcomes of what America has done when they neglected those with homosexual confusions the help they truly need and condoning them is not one of them!

Posted Monday, July 06, 2009 8:32 AM By Peter
MarkF - Nonsense.

Posted Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:34 PM By MarkF
Uh, excuse me Peter, but Nos. 1 and 3 of what I wrote are already happening in this country, No. 2 has already happened in Canada, and No.4 is just around the bend. Once marriage becomes a civil right open to all, then what is to stop incest or polygamy? What's funny is that I never get a legal answer for people on this point. What I get is, "Oh it will never happen", or "It won't happen because it won't happen because it won't happen." I have yet to hear a reason as to why it won't happen, and less so a guarantee that it won't happen. And to say that you don't care because it's not your issue is not particularly reassuring.

Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:00 PM By Peter
MarkF - Marriage is a civil right open to all today, except to same-sex partners. What is stopping incest or polygamy among heterosexuals today? That's your answer.

Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:35 PM By MarkF
Peter, marriage is not a civil right that is open to all except to same sex partners. It is not open to close family relatives of either sex; it is not open to multiple partners. How can you even say that it is only same-sex couples who cannot marry? And the law, made by the majority, is what stops or curtails incest and polygamy. The problem with even this is that when the courts step in to declare on their own that the majority cannot restrict the sexual lives of the community, that will also lead to the eventual legalization of incest. The same rationale that asks by what right does the majority have to regulate homosexual behavior can and will eventually be turned to ask by what right does the majority have to regulate incest and polygamy.

Posted Monday, July 20, 2009 10:23 AM By Peter
MarkF- Yes. That's my point exactly. Those things are illegal. Same-sex marriage is not; ergo, "Marriage is a civil right open to all today, except to same-sex partners." You answered your own question.

Posted Monday, July 20, 2009 2:20 PM By MarkF
Peter, that makes NO sense. It is legal for a man to have many sexual partners. It is not legal for him to have many wives. He is denied the right of a civil marriage for all of his so-called wives. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws regulating homosexual relationships, many states had laws to govern that. The same rationale that the Supreme Court used - and that you and others use in support of same-sex marriage - that the majority has no right to regulate personal sexual behavior between consenting adults, can and will be used to first legalize consenting incest and then to legally recognize incestuous and polygamous marriages. I knew this even when I used to be an active homosexual. The only argument I ever hear to deny this always boils down to "that won't ever happen." I have yet to hear an argument to explain how once the civil institution of marriage is defined by the individual that we won't end up with incestuous and polygamous marriages. Right now, the main way that same-sex marriage is legally advanced is by defining homosexuals as a historically discriminated class. The problem with that is that the polygamous religious groups in this country have experience historical persecution, as have those who practice incest. We are only one court decision away from having both legally recognized.

Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:34 AM By Peter
MarKF - It is very unlikely that the courts would ever endorse polygamous or incestuous marriage since both are illegal for reasons not linked to an immutable human trait(sexuality); polygamy for administrative and practical reasons (i.e. guaranteed financial support for multiple spouses), and incest for proven biological concerns regarding inbreeding. How does that not make sense to you? But I'll humor you - Even if a court order were to change the laws regarding polygamy, or if three-headed babies were suddenly en vogue (gotta make the babies!), what makes you think the pursuit of civil "marriage" would be worth the effort for these groups and what immutable human characteristic would be the basis for claims of discrimination?

Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:34 AM By MarkF
Peter, thanks for getting back to me. This is what I always hear, the explanation that "it just won't happen," which is not very reassuring. Hardly ten years ago, no one would have thought that same-sex marriage would ever be a possibility. And twenty years ago, forget it. Even gay people didn't talk about it that long ago. I was gay all that time, so I remember this. And sexuality is not immutable like race. You think that the state can cite financial concerns of the people who want to be married, or its own administrative costs when defines marriage? We let poor people get married, don't we? And the state does not ban people with inheritable genetics disorders from getting married. The ban on incest and polygamy between consenting adults is based on the morality of the majority. When the Supreme Court struck down the ban on consensual homosexuality, it said there had to be a compelling reason for the states to ban private sexual conduct, and in doing so it also struck down bans on fornication and adultery, which were all enacted for moral reasons. In his dissent Scalia said that soon the states will not being able to enact laws based on morality. Remember this though, this is not a new idea of mine. I knew that same-sex marriage would lead to this even when I supported it and was pro-homosexual. But I like to toss ideas around with you. You're an honest person to talk to. Oh, as far as homosexuality being immutable, I'm not so sure about that. People come out and also leave, and no one except Michael Jackson ever stopped being black before. Also, when Congress recently added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes, it made clear that it referred to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and also all other sorts of fetishes - those into leather, bestiality, incest, necrophilia. It is on the basis of who is a protected class that the California court created same-sex marriage.

Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:40 AM By MarkF
Now the bestiality and necrophilia part are safe because of the lack of there being another consensual adult there, and the same goes for underage sex, so I don't think that these sorts of unions could ever be declared to be marriages. But when the standard is consensual adults as it is in incest between adults and polygamy, it is harder to keep that barrier up. Other than financial concerns, which is a flimsy excuse, or genetics, which does not stop carriers of Downs Syndrome from getting married, why would you even want to stop such couples from getting married? Doesn't the same argument of "what concern is it of yours?", or "how does it affect you?" apply?

Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:53 AM By JLS
Peter, if it's not moral, then it's money. Gay advocacy is not moral, and thus obviously is money driven; for, man serves either God or money. If there were big money in beastiality or polygamy, then it would be rising as a political plank. Gay everything is big money, and this is why it is rising politically.

Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:10 PM By Peter
MarkF - The "fetishes" angle was added to the discussion as a scare tactic by the American Family Association. People exhibiting fetishes (homo and hetero) are only protected insofar as they are either homo, hetero, or somewhere in between. Fetishes (the "iles" are not protected classes).

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:54 AM By MarkF
Peter, so there are two sorts of people, homosexual and heterosexual? I thought the Constitution only defined one, a citizen. Guess I'm wrong again. Hmmm. But maybe you're right, but only half way there. What about bisexual people? Are they a special creation too? If they are born that way, then their only happiness can be by marriage to both a man and a woman at the same time. What about transgendered people? Are they not a separate class of people too? One question, if you think that there are two kinds of people, gay and straight, then which category do people who practice bestiality fall into? Does the gender of the sheep matter? So that there are gay bestial people and straight bestial people? And the two have nothing in common? Is that what you're saying? Rep. Alceee Hastings, the sponsor of the "hate crimes" bill said that ALL sexual behavior defines the person as WHO they are, not WHAT they do. Once the behavior is defined such, then the behavior becomes a civil right. This has been the successful strategy of homosexual groups. But you're right. The fetishes are not protected classes. Yet. But we are only one court decision from that happening, and the groundwork has been laid. Since bestiality and necrophilia do not meet the standard of consenting adults but incest can and polygamy does, then they will inevitably be seen as protected classes. Heck, the Mormons experienced violence for their polygamy. Doesn't that qualify them? Just a question, why are you so bigoted against those who practice incest and polygamy? Why all the hatred against non-traditional families? Why is your morality the best? Some people are born to practice incest. They've wanted to do so since they were little kids. Believe me, I've talked to them before. Why are you such a right wing religious fanatic? You know, hate is not a family value. And what can be more supportive of the family then incest, or than by having larger families through polygamy?

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:20 AM By Peter
MarkF - Obvisously human sexuality is a continuum between the hetero and homo extremes. But since you insist on including incest and polygamy in a discussion on human sexuality (in which neither belongs): If a hetero man wants to marry his hetero daughter and the courts permit it, fine - I hope they're very happy together and have many three-headed children. If a hetero man wants to have several hetero wives and the courts permit it, fine - I hope they're very happy together and financially stable. Should they have that right? Maybe. Do I care? No. Would I interfere in their attempt to achieve that right? No. On the surface, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with polygamy or incest, but I disagree with you that there is an inborn proclivity toward either which would justify their qualification as a protected class; neither is on the continuum of human sexuality nor do they qualify under the precedent set by the other protected classes. Likewise with the other "fetishes".

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:17 PM By Abeca Christian
MarkF you bring up good points here.

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:01 PM By MarkF
Peter, if there is an inborn proclivity to homosexuality, why has it taken four thousand years for us to notice it? Were our ancestors THAT stupid? Is it because they didn't have the microscopes needed to see the "gay gene?" Oh, I forgot, there is no "gay gene," so that can't be it. Maybe because it's NOT inborn but develops in early childhood. By what psychological sleight of hand do you ascribe homosexuality to genetics, yet all these other fetishes (all to be labeled the same way as sexual orientation) to psychology? How is it that pedophilia stems from something in childhood while heterosexuality and homosexuality are inborn? It's a little too convenient isn't it? The sexualities that you approve of are inborn and natural, while the sexual orientations of those you don't approve of are unnatural and probably the result of child abuse. It all fits so nicely when you select the outcome that meets your desires. But thanks for finally admitting that same-sex marriage will lead to incestuous marriage and to polygamy. And thanks for not caring what happens to society. After all, it is all about you and your needs.

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:16 PM By JLS
Peter, wrong: Human sexuality is not a continuum between extremes, but the natural state. Extremes, as you call them, are things which rebel against nature and morality, and are not part of a continuum. Even though the evolutionists relish the fetish of "continuum", it is not real, is nothing more than a vain imagining. There is no connection between homosexual acts and nature, or God's will. St Paul makes it clear that immoral sex acts connects people, not in a continuum but in an isolation from the norm and from morality. The only way to transport oneself from isolation is through the salavation of Jesus Christ, who continued from death to life ... He is the only continuum there is, and our only access to this continuum is by the grace and mercy of the all loving God. But since there is this one continuum, there is also that which is not part of it. This is the discontinuum, or Hell on earth as it is sometimes called. And it can be eternal also.

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:21 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, that is true Peter, human sexuality is a continuum between the hetero and homo extremes. We are learning even more about the complexities of this in our modern world.

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:41 PM By JLS
PA, the "continuum" of sexuality, just like the "continuum" of the theory of evolution is imaginary, a fantasy, vain to believe as a fact or worse to believe as the truth. The only evidence in either case is for discrete created beings, whether it be animals, men or sexuality. Every sex act is a discrete event, with no continuum with any other, except in the imagination. It is in this false belief of "continuums" where faith can be waylayed, snared, trapped in a pit, or otherwise betrayed. The only true "continuum" is the Holy Spirit who makes us one ... that is, those who are united with Christ, ie in union with God. Christ says there is "outer darkness with bitterness and gnashing of teeth", which is to say that there is no continuum in the universe other than what God effects through His Holy Spirit. If you read Genesis 1, which describes how created life begins, and read it in a faithful translation if you don't read Hebrew, then you can understand that there is no continuum. The concept of continuum is not even rational, for it cannot be seen or measured. It is a human imitation of the Holy Spirit who connects creation with the Creator; and this is why creationists ardently warn against belief in such fantasies as are based on the idea of "continuum". The objective of homosexualist activism is to make it seem as though there is a continuum, as though we are all one, as though we are all connected. St Paul teaches us that when we join ourselves with others outside of marriage, then we link ourselves perversely with many others. That is in itself fodder for the false prophesy of "continuum", a snare for the soul of one who should repent sacramentally to dislodge himself from the imitation of what God has united together, of the type representing the union with God and man. The Church seeks to purify us for the love of God, which is union of love forever. Banking on these false things linked by "continuums" is to deny Heaven.

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:36 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, you're so right. The revealed word of God and our sacred traditions are NOTHING compared to modern, atheistic science. It's so obvious that we live in the golden age of human progress away from religious superstitions.

Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:37 PM By Jerry
The Church does not teach any particular explanation for why some people are homosexual and others are not. It is permissible to believe that some people are "born that way". Genetics is only one aspect of "born that way" and the science of genetics is not well developed at this time. Saying things like "there is no gay gene" is like saying "there is no gene for height or IQ or handedness" That it's not determined in whole by one particular gene does not mean there are not genetic influences. Studies have confirmed that there are signficant genetic influences to homosexuality. In terms of psychology, the Church teaches that "its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained." Genetics, biology, pre-natal hormones, birth order, physical and social environment are all factors.

Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:33 AM By Ed Garber
JLS, the Church teaches that some people experience an exclusive attraction to the same sex, some a predominant attraction to the same sex, some a predominant attraction to the opposite sex, and some an exclusive attraction to the opposite sex, and perhaps countless degrees between each of those. Many people would view that as a "continuum" in at least the broad, everyday sense of the word.

Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:39 AM By MarkF
Jerry, you're right that there is no widely accepted idea of what the origins of homosexuality are. A priest friend of mine is a big believer in the idea that the origins don't matter, that all that matter is don't do it. While I understand that, I also understand what the "born gay" idea is really about. It's not a scientific idea, it is a political idea meant to normalize homosexual relations. I'm old enough to remember when the idea first came about, the gay activists clearly and openly presented it as such - a way to force through demands for homosexual rights. My own ideas are well known on here, that it comes from a lack of a close relationship with the parent of the same-sex. Do the majority of atheistic scientists support this? Probably not, but they also believe that depression is not caused by events in your life, but is caused by some mythical chemical imbalance. Remember, you're just a chemical, a meaningless whirl of accidents in a godless, random world. You're just an animal, and a bad one at that. And most of all, your life has no meaning. You can abort your young and cheat on your spouse. Oh, but for some reason you can't kill the snail darter, drive a big car or eat food that is not locally grown. Those are really, really, really evil actions. What's fun about getting older is to see the stream of ideas about the origins come up, get bandied about as definite and conclusive and then get struck down. For 15 minutes, the media was all about the hypothalamus, then it birth order, then, unbelievably, it was the length of the ring finger vs the index finger and the colic of hair on your head. Them, oops, wrong again. Hmmm, maybe look at all the guys who call their BF "daddy," who grew up like I did with an AWOL father, and who never fit in with other males? Nah, that doesn't lead to political demands, and that blows away the cherished idea that your life has no meaning. You have to go to college to learn to be this stupid.

Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:47 AM By MarkF
Ed Garber, OK, so what is it about this alleged continuum that changes the meaning of the words "never approved" to "approved if I, Ed Garber, determine them to be so?" Man this catechism stuff is tough. I'm glad we have an expert here to explain it. I'm learning more and more every day. Maybe you could explain to me what "feigned ignorance and hardness of heart" are, catechism paragraph 1863?

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device











Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com