Churches Worth Driving Away From as Fast as Possible!

I’ve been thinking about this for a while.  And since we have nothing to do but watch the aftermath of the 2016 election and breathe one big sigh of relief there’s no more President Clintons for the near future, let’s be a little proactive!  There’s a nice little column called “Churches Worth Driving To” over at California Catholic Daily.  I’ve always found this column really helpful in finding refuges when I’m traveling.  That said, I would find it equally helpful to have a list of parishes to avoid like the plague.  I’ve found myself in strange locales across the United States and I’ve stumbled into some pretty un-Catholic Catholic churches.

So, in an effort to help you avoid getting an earful of heresy and dissent, I’ve decided to start this blog post.  Please don’t comment with some parish whose main crime is something along the line of not providing an Extraordinary Form or that they have too much felt.  Please also include why we should flee from it if other Masses are available to you.  Yes, this is a do-it-yourself blog post but I’ve been a bit busy and I’m trying to ease back in to the commentary thing.  Also,  wouldn’t it be helpful to not have your vacation or business trip ruined by having to debate Catholicism with a priest who just scandalized your children?

I’ll start the ball rolling!

Most Holy Redeemer, San Francisco, CA:  This has nothing to do with the fact that it “ministers” to homosexual people. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it has long facilitated homosexuals to rail against the teachings of the Church and to carry on with homosexual acts despite the danger to their souls.

St. Agnes, San Francisco, CA: Inclusive, Jesuit, Ridiculous.  (Locals will get the reference to the “Inclusive. Jesuit. Divine.” banners all over the Panhandle area.) Just more of the usual Jesuit dissent and pro-homosexual relation rhetoric.

Christ the King, Pleasant Hill, CA: Long time dissenting church in the Oakland Diocese.  We’re hoping for changes under their new pastor, but the same old dissenters have lined up some ridiculous speakers as of late.

St. Monica’s, Santa Monica, CA: They put their Masses online so you can enjoy the horror from your very own home.  I’ve always wondered, with the nice video evidence provided, why haven’t they had a major change of “leadership?” I’ve been wanting to do a blog post on the outrageous there but there’s simply too much material from which to choose!

There are many more in my fair state, but these top my list of parishes that annoy the heck out of me.  How about you?  Add your biggest annoyances in the comment section below! Remember to include the city and state so people can search a bit easier!  

Show Us the Mercy!

Sometimes I wish some of these priests would really get into the Year of Mercy and show us a little by retiring already! Why is it that priests in my diocese, careening toward retirement, try to be as obnoxious as they can be on their way out the door?  Now, Fr. Gerard Moran actually hasn’t been one of more obnoxious players in the Oakland diocese, and I’ve never had much of a problem with him other than people finding him a bit unapproachable, but since he decided to go there, here I go. 

Before I start, I would like to tell the dear priests of my diocese: when someone forwards me a nice public statement from you that’s seditious (McGrath isn’t the only one who can use that term), I will respond!  Please don’t feign shock that somebody was horrified by your actions.  You can’t claim you didn’t know.  Fr. Richard Mangini learned that little lesson last year (

Here’s the lovely little screed Fr. Moran decided to put in his bulletin today.  I’m hoping the good parishioners of St. Isidore’s will drop our bishop a line with their disgust.


On October 24, we received the sad news that the Sulpician Fathers would be withdrawing from St. Patrick’s Seminary and University, Menlo Park. In 1884, Archbishop Alemany recruited Sulpician priests to found a seminary to train priests for his vast archdiocese.

Please note, the Sulpicians were not thrown out.  They withdrew, as Fr. Moran correctly said, and from what I understand, it was the mothership that called the remaining Sulpicians at St. Patrick’s home, not their boots on the ground requesting to leave.  By all accounts, the Sulpicians working there now are very faithful priests, so thank you to them! 

The Sulpicians were founded in 1641 by Fr. Olier in the parish of St. Sulpice in Paris. He founded a seminary there to create a worthy secular priesthood. The newly ordained priests were sent to all parts of France, setting a new tone and model for diocesan priests.

And then somewhere along the way they went off the rails and started creating guys like Fr. Moran who don’t understand that the Church isn’t their private playground to do what they will.  They apparently were great at forming priests with a disdain and lack of respect for our hierarchical Church.  They started creating priests who would take their archbishop or bishop to task for taking his job seriously, as if it that is some sort of personality disorder.  It’s called being responsible.

St. Patrick’s Seminary was entrusted to the care of the priests of the Society of St. Sulpice by the archbishops of San Francisco since its founding. The seminary, under the direction of the Sulpicians, was incorporated in 1891; the first high school students were accepted into the Department of Classics in 1898; the Philosophy Department was added in 1902 and the Department of Theology in 1904.

St. Patrick’s Seminary has a truly special place in the hearts of the more than 2,000 priests and almost 40 bishops, including Bishop John S. Cummins, who have received their priestly formation from the Sulpician Fathers. Priests formed by the Sulpicians have touched the lives of countless individuals and families since 1898.

Sadly, until recently, St. Patrick’s has practically been a swear word for those of us who have had to live with the priests ordained there in the 60s and 70s and beyond.  If Bishop Cummins is supposed to be the poster child of what the Sulpicians produce, that would speak volumes as to why this is a grand opportunity for Archbishop Cordileone.

Those of us who were educated in Menlo Park treasure the very personal aspect of our relations with the Sulpicians; from our spiritual direction to our common prayer and to the lecture hall. Their life was a hidden life, a life of prayer, study, a life spent with their students, with an unqualified commitment to serving us and giving us the example of sacerdotal virtues.

Wow!  How awesome would it be if you were taught to treasure your relationship with your former bishop?  I realize it’s probably really hard on those who were used to the Bishop Cummins “do whatever you like” attitude and his overdose of “collegiality” when it came to his priests, but the faithful are REALLY happy to have a bishop and archbishop who are willing to sacrifice their personal happiness and put up with you to protect the faithful and form holy priests.

The Sulpicians were faced with the awesome task in the 1960’s of bridging a path between an older Theological view and the newer perspective being forged by the Second Vatican Council. A high priority was to introduce a course on ecumenism. Archbishop McGucken sanctioned a series of lectures by the noted authority at Stanford University, Robert McAfee Brown.

Unfortunately, they forgot to point out that we are not Protestants.  They might have wanted to form the priests in Catholicism before bringing in the Protestant guy to show you how to rebel.

The Sulpician, Fr. Ray Brown, published for seminarians a one-volume commentary on the Bible, which followed the directives of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical and taught us the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture. We seminarians saw Fr. Brown as a dedicated priest, who faithfully celebrated Mass each day and used the liturgical celebration to expound the written Word of God. Fr. Brown, the author of 40 books, was appointed by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Oh, my gosh, Father!  Really?  Fr. Ray Brown???  Oh, please!  Let’s just take a little look at him, shall we?  Pope St. John Paul II himself smacked down Brown’s silly notions:

Most Alumni or my generation have happy memories of Sulpician Father Frank Norris, who was a progressive thinker and supporter of the new developments of Vatican II having worked as a translator for non-Catholic observers during the final session of the Council. In spite of his constant demand as a speaker, he published a well-received book on the church, God’s Own People.

Hey, didn’t Yves Congar write the preface for that one?  That’s a whole other story, though.  Sigh!

The Sulpicians gave us a vision of Church which was wide and inclusive, not narrow and blinkered. Sadly, the Sulpicians have been on a collision course with Archbishop Cordileone since his appointment to San Francisco. He fired the rector, Fr. James McKearney, in mid-term 2013 and appointed Bishop Daly, without consultation, as intern rector. During my three years working with Salvatore Cordileone as Bishop of Oakland, I discovered characterological patterns in his behavior, including obsessive compulsive micromanagement. It is my hope and prayer that the three former Archbishops of San Francisco, John Quinn, Cardinal Levada and George Niederauer, will use their influence in Rome to see the Sulpician decision is not irrevocable.

Give me a break, Fr. Moran!  And now their order numbers somewhere around 300 (, as opposed to an order like the Dominicans, which numbers around 6,000, but, hey, it was all Archbishop Cordileone’s fault.  He’s obviously been plotting since he was a small child to overthrow the Sulpicians once he became the guy in charge of the seminary.  Groaaaannnn!  Sorry.  It would seem that the Sulpicians are their own worst enemy, and they likely called their good guys home to rebuild their order before it fades into oblivion.  It was a smart move.

By all means, yes, let’s bring out Archbishop Quinn. You know, the guy who just advocated for the ordination of women?  My goodness, how about we just let the elderly live in peace?

I’m not really sure why you think Cardinal Levada or Archbishop Niederauer would go to bat for you, since they weren’t treated with any more respect than Archbishop Cordileone.  They were also the recipients of the liberals’ blindsides and questioning of their authority.  I’m reasonably sure they don’t want to have anything more to do with the likes of you and your ilk who pine for the “freer”  Bishop Cummins days of answering to nobody but your “internal whatever.”  It’s so sad you can’t see the difference between a good bishop and someone who is obsessive compulsive.  You’re so pompous, the idea of you having to follow the authority of anyone else can’t even be fathomed.  How dare a bishop lead his priests!  The nerve!  Yeah, the Sulpicians did a banner job with you.

 Fr. Moran, you owe the Archbishop, your own Bishop and your congregation one big apology for your misguided missive.  Heck, I think you even owe the Sulpicians an apology for being such a poor example of their formation.  Did you just stop to think for one second that it might have been wildly inappropriate?  At this point, you’ve given us a great glimpse of the products of Sulpicians of the past and why their decision to withdraw might have been great for us.  Maybe now we can look forward to priests who don’t undermine their bishops.  What a concept!

Here’s to many years of the formation of faithful priests and may Archbishop Cordileone find the perfect order to do the job!

If you’d like to express your feeling to Fr. Moran:  

Not So Strange Bedfellows

This is about as much surprise as Hillary being evil.  In other words, NO SHOCKER HERE!  Quite frankly, I’m reasonably sure that Fr. James Martin, SJ, likely has ties in there somewhere, too, because he’s mentioned in a whole lot of articles with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, but can we just start off with this most obnoxious speaker, Dr. Arthur Fitzmaurice?

What we’re all wondering now is what the faithful bishops are going to do about it?  I mean, come on! John Podesta gave them a big ‘ol gift-wrapped package by stupidly putting in writing what many of us already knew.  Are you a bishop who’s wanted to get rid of this guy and his organizations for a while?  You now have the perfect reason to clear house and it’s a reason the average person in the pew can grasp.  Please don’t pass up this chance!  If we can’t get rid of a guy listed in the staff directory of an organization that John Podesta says is meant to overthrow the Church in America, we must be a bit suicidal as a church.

Now what will the response be on Fitzmaurice’s part?  “I didn’t know”?  Please.  He’s stated quite plainly his contempt for Church teachings.  Of course he wants to overthrow it.  Let’s just look at him again:

“ Fitzmaurice made news in March of this year at an annual conference for religious educators in Los Angeles when he denounced Church teaching on homosexuality as “abusive” and “gravely evil.” The gay ministry has a history of conflict with Church teaching. In 2012, the ministry’s board members defied their bishop, then Salvatore Cordileone, and refused to sign an oath which would bind them to “strive to clearly present Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in its fullness” and “profess personally to hold and believe, and practice all that the holy Catholic church teaches, believes and proclaims to be true, whether from the natural moral law or by way revelation from God through Scripture and tradition.””

Dear Arthur and his merry band of lesbian planners of the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress have their fingerprints all over the dissent at the “Congress”, as we locals call it.  Archbishop Gomez has given them a chance for reform, but he just need to overhaul it or shut it down.  How about some new administrators for the Congress?  All they do now is seek to undermine him yearly.  Honestly?  I think even they are a little shocked that he still lets them manipulate it.  Every year they seem to be trying to go out in a blaze of glory by notching up the dissent and outrageousness just a little more, yet they’re still there.  Last year’s list of undermining?  How about bringing in some transgendered young adults to extol the virtues of being Catholic and transgender? Or how about using the homosexual couple and their child as gift bearers in the offertory?  Cannot wait to see what’s in store for this year!  Maybe a marriage blessing for the lesbian organizer?  Why not? How else would they top the 2016 Congress? 

While it’s impossible to make them go away, at least the Oakland Diocese has disallowed Arthur Fitzmaurice’s other group, the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry, from operating with the blessings of the Church after Fitzmaurice and the CALGM club refused to sign an oath of fidelity to traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality.  It was a no brainer.

Seriously, Archbishop Gomez, I’m sure this level of insanity has been hard to grasp, but grasp it you must.  It’s very real.  The Oakland Diocese used to be THE biggest exporter of heresy in the country, but after our succession of three great bishops, I’m reasonably sure that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and their Congress might hold the title now.  You need to make a few calls and organize a new board for the Congress.  We all know the key players who could successfully pull off the transition and install some true religious education.  Unfortunately, right now it appears 2017 is slated to be another dissent education bash. 

The Wolves are Cozy on the Couch

This has been an awful week for the Catholic Church, hands down.  Can’t say I didn’t see it coming, but the trifecta of bad cardinal appointments stings like hell (and I mean that literally).  I was hoping the devastation would be offset by a Cardinal Chaput appointment, but my hopes were dashed.  The liberals won this battle, pure and simple.  So what are we to do?  What is happening with the Pope?  Why is this happening?  Etc., etc., etc.  These are just some of the questions my poor readers are asking. Sorry this post is going to stray far from the sarcastic norm.

Those of you who read the blog regularly have probably noticed that I don’t criticize the Holy Father.  I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I have questions and thoughts in my head that I don’t convey.  Why don’t I relay them?  Because what good would it do? It would simply  give comfort to the enemy.  He certainly is the Pope.  Anyone who believes a less than stellar pope is not THE Pope doesn’t know history all that well.  We’ve had some pretty awful ones, and we’ve also had great ones who have made less-than-desirable moves.  I mean, who was it again that elevated Cardinal Mahoney?  If that wasn’t an epic mistake, I’m not sure what was. Yet that pope was the guy whose right hand man was Pope Benedict.  Heck, he’s canonized! Everyone has a bad day.  I hope that’s what’s going on here with Pope Francis. 

So, what is the girl who sits on her hands and avoids all attempts to criticize the Pope going to say?  Well, first of all, I feel your pain and I’ll try to be a voice for you.  Yes, these were bad appointments that are going to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Faith – namely Fr. James Martin, SJ, and his cohorts in crime.  There’s no way to spin it.  However, it’s one battle.  It ain’t the war, and we already know the outcome of that.  It’s just a matter of how bad things will be until we get to that outcome.

So what about Pope Francis?  I’m hardly Rocco Palmo, but my GUESS is that this is what you get when you have a cardinal from Argentina elevated to the papacy.  He was so far removed from the politics of Rome that he doesn’t know who the enemy really is. He has, frankly, Argentinian notions about the rest of the world, and I think he’s actually seen that some of these notions weren’t quite what he thought.  He was insulated there and he’s insulated now. He has no clue and simply trusts those that appear to be friendly really are.  Heck, I’ve seen that happen to great bishops right here in America.  It’s amazing how well the dissidents can gain confidence when they adjust those halos.  However, the faithful bishops and cardinals had better figure out a way to clue him in that he is being handled, or the Church that my kids have to live in is going to tank for the foreseeable future. 

One thing I notice here in the States is that we have this really weird view of collegiality.  Rarely do faithful bishops or cardinals take on a bishop who is undermining doctrine and morality. They’ll all get together on topics where they feel they can win in society, but not on the issues that affect all of us.  Or, at least, this is the view from the pew.  I mean, if the good guys really care about the laity, why don’t they something???  If my husband saw his brother abusing his family, he certainly wouldn’t sit there and say, “Not my problem!”  His brother’s family would also be his family, even if he isn’t the head of their household.  My husband would also lend a brother a hand if they were in crisis and needed back up when they were in the right.  Unfortunately, I don’t really remember the bishops around the United States rallying around Archbishop Cordileone when he rightly wanted to hold his teachers to Catholic standards.  A rally cry instead should have gone up from all the faithful bishops that he was quite right to try to protect the students of the Catholic schools.

Heck, from my point of view, it seems as if the bishops living 20 minutes from each other don’t even consult together.  SOMEBODY, please call for a national summit of faithful bishops, because the laity is dying here!  I mean DYING!  Where the laity is concerned, giving Cupich a red hat doesn’t just affect the people of his diocese.  It affects us all!  The liberal priests, bishops, and cardinals are what they are.  We need the more-than-a -few good men to help us out here.  Why is it the liberals can band together but you guys cannot? It’s almost like watching the Republican party flail around these days.  Meanwhile, over in National catholic Reporter land, they have no qualms about forming an army to put down one faithful priest, bishop, or cardinal at a time.  Then there’s the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good.  Anyone catch Wikileaks this week?  Yes, our conspiracy theories have been validated.

In all seriousness, I would like to see the guys who love their flocks, the Church, the lost, AND my children all get on a plane and knock on Pope Francis’ door and give him the real score.  There is strength in numbers, and this isn’t just a saying.  You can’t let Cardinal Burke do all the talking and be relegated to Malta for the unforeseeable future. When one of you does something necessary to preserve the Faith in one area, you should all be publicizing it in your own dioceses.  Back each other up! More importantly, unite for the sake of MY children. 

Sometimes I feel like we faithful are an afterthought to many of you. That might be unfair but I guarantee that’s how many of us feel. You need to stop worrying about your job, and I’m not saying that in the “That’s all you care about way!”  I know that you want to stay with your flock to affect the most positive of outcomes, but it’s not working. You are essentially being extorted because you’re trying to do it all by yourself.  Cupich and club are undermining you at every turn, and you guys are still plodding on and keeping your noses to the grindstones.  I get the intention, but I think you all need to start being as “sly as the serpent and as gentle as doves” in a little more proactive way.

Your eminences and excellencies, just stop for a moment and pretend you are a father with children (because you are). If another parent or your child’s teacher is telling your child that homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice or that sex outside of marriage was fine, or that it would be just fine for your child to get an abortion because “their circumstance” warranted it, what would you do???????  Would you simply say, “Well, what can I do?” or would you give them a stern talking to about influencing your child to commit spiritual suicide?  I know you don’t have biological children, but darn it, we are supposed to be your spiritual children, yet you are letting the wolves come in and gnaw on us.  You’re reaching out to the lambs already taken from the flock, and I wouldn’t want you to stop, but what about the rest of us? Think long and hard because that’s what’s happening to your flock.  Nobody wants to feel bad about their sin, so they will cling to anyone telling them that they are just peachy.  As a parent, I’m not going to let that happen.  We’re going to fight as a family to keep that from happening.

I get that the bishops are “leaving the ninety-nine to go after the one”, but in our present scenario, when you go after the one, a bunch more are lost.  We’re hemorrhaging the salvation of our young.  There’s no longer just one straying because the shepherds aren’t closing the gate when they go after the one and the wolves are getting in.  It’s a reality that those of us “real world” parents are experiencing.  We’re killing ourselves to make sure all the good you do isn’t undone, but we feel like we can’t get our spiritual fathers to support us because they’re busy with the other children.  You need to find balance like all parents.

Again, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go after those who are straying.  When kids stray in a family, mom and dad have to go after them relentlessly, but at the same time, they need to make sure that no more stray by presenting a mixed message.  The worst thing a parent can do is cave to emotional blackmail.  If I love my child, they are going to know it, but they are also going to know the truth and they will know that I have nothing but their immortal soul in mind.  You can be both firm and loving.  I’m not sure if this is a point lost on those with no biological children, but it needs to be understood.  Saying “No!” can often be the most loving thing you can say, and no, the wandering will not always like it.  So?  We just keep reaching out to them.

I once had a priest curtly ask me, “With all due respect, who are you?!” when I was expressing my concerns about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy exploiting them.  My answer?  “Who am I?  I’m a girl who’s concerned about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy expounding on them!”  Is that wrong??? Are we simply to keep smiling?  Can I not be concerned? Are we supposed to be in denial about how such things are being used?  I don’t claim to be anything special, but I’m betting I’m echoing the concerns of a good chunk of the laity.  I’m not going into schism and disobedience. I’m just terrified, and I want our fathers to know how terrified we are for our families. I’m not urging the bishops to go rogue.  I’m urging them to be strategic.  We really are in a war.

So, what is the laity to do?  Pray, fast, beg our bishops to fight for their children, and prepare for the next battle.  In other words, carry on.

Dissent 101 at Christ the King Parish

 Pleasant Hill parish hosts dissenting speakers

Agenda not in line with Church teaching coming to Christ the King

The following is a California Catholic Daily exclusive story by Anna Rose:

The dissenting speakers have not ceased at Christ the King parish in Pleasant Hill. On October 1, a self-identified Christian Meditation organization called the Hesed Community has invited the ever-dissident Sr. Joan Chittister to speak at the parish.

In addition, other problematic speakers are slated to speak in the upcoming months, most notably Dr. Lisa Fullam, Fr. Padraig Greene, and Luke Hansen, SJ. (

I would love to say that I’m totally and utterly shocked, but I am not.  That is par for the course for Christ the King parish.  I’m not entirely sure that the parishioners even know there’s a problem with these speakers.  They’ve been stuck with the notorious pastors for years and likely don’t have a clue.  I think many Catholics from other parishes in the Oakland Diocese were hoping that Fr. Paulson would rein in this type of stuff.  If you’re from this parish, please, please, research them and realize that they represent the antithesis of the Church teachings. In fact, if you’re looking to lead the Catholic life, I’d suggest finding another parish altogether.  If you want to feel good about your particular sin, feel free to stay.  If you want a shot at avoiding a long stint in purgatory and gaining heaven, go somewhere where they are trying to help you do that!  It isn’t at this parish.

Oh, and these are still happening per the parish website

Sr. Joan Chittister was the keynote speaker at the 2015 Call to Action Conference. In 2001, the Vatican forbade her to speak at the Women’s Ordination Conference, but she ignored them. She disagrees in many areas with the Magisterium of the Church: women’s ordination, admission of homosexuals to the priesthood, the celibate priesthood, and she is, at best, a moral relativist in the areas of abortion and birth control.

A cursory glance at her teachings on contemplation reveals that she ties all into her radical agenda, not the sublime objective of giving the greatest honor to God. For example, she states in her video program, “From Contemplation to Justice”, that “The contemplative can never be again a complacent participant in an oppressive system” and that “Those that have no flame in their heart for justice, no consciousness for the reign of God, no raging commitment for human community may indeed be seeking God but make no mistake, God is still, at best, only an idea to them, not a reality.” Apparently, Sr. Joan can never see someone devoted to perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as truly knowing God. She encourages being like Martha, where the Church encourages us to be more like Mary, that is, true contemplation.

The beautiful, blue links were stripped out during the copy and paste, so check out the links provided at California Catholic Daily and save me some time.  The author is totally right!  I can just see the organizers of the Chittister events saying (cue faux innocent voice) “Whaaaaattttt???  She’s just talking about the contemplative life.”  Did you even watch the video?  Nice try!  Everything she does is pretty much Dissent 101, and I’m reasonably sure she would think Eucharistic Adoration misogynistic.  Seriously, Joan can even find “inequality” in the Eucharist.  No, I’m not kidding. All this woman can see is women being shafted by the Church.  I just had to do a quick Google to find this:  She’s obsessed with misogyny.  Sorry, Joan, there are no misogynists under your bed.  You really need to let go of your “daddy issues” and stop being so bitter about the real men in our Church.  Understanding the Eucharist might be an obstacle for you, Joan, but to a good chunk of us, it’s the source and summit of the Faith.

Dr. Lisa Fullam

Dr. Lisa Fullam is an advocate of allowing same-sex civil marriages. She also has a skewed view of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and our necessary obedience to them, as shown in this quote from her article entitled, “Thou Shalt Sex Beyond the List of Don’ts”: “Christian ethical reflection on sex has tended to focus on what makes individual sex acts morally right or wrong. This view of sex that looks at acts objectively and tends to regard anything sexual as probably sinful has resulted in a rule-focused sexual morality generally expressed as lists of don’ts: Don’t masturbate. Don’t have sex before marriage. Don’t use contraception when you have sex in marriage. Don’t have sex outside marriage. Don’t have sex with someone of your own sex. Don’t abuse others sexually. I’m not dismissing these don’ts out of hand: Some don’ts are of great value, some are less valuable, and some are grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology and should be discarded.”

Uh, who died and made you pope?  Oh, that’s right, nobody.  Who are you to decide which Church teachings should be discarded?  If you don’t want to be Catholic, just renounce the Faith, toddle off and leave us alone.  I love all the little accusations without a shred of backup.  I cannot believe this one is a Th.D.  Really?  How do you teach “Fundamental Moral Theology” ( when you haven’t a clue as to what it is or what it means?  Please, parents, could we scratch Santa Clara off your list?  You could get better moral theology as CSU Anywhere.

Dr. Fullam has also contradicted Church teaching that life begins at conception, when the egg and the sperm join to form a completely unique human being. She holds that life begins at implantation, and that contraception that blocks implantation is not an abortifacient because no pregnancy exists. A 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine conducted by Dr. Farr Curlin shows that only 28 percent of the 1,000 OB/GYN’s surveyed believe that life begins at implantation. Fifty-seven percent believed it begins at conception and the rest are unsure. It’s hardly the “settled science” that Dr. Lisa Fullam puts forth. Clearly to have her as an expert on science or theology is a mistake for Catholics, yet this is the woman that the staff of Christ the King thought was the person to bring in to talk about sexual ethics of the Church regarding birth control.

Seriously?  I’m not sure what’s more outrageous here.  Her general lack of scientific knowledge or the fact that someone thought she would be someone who should ever speak in a Catholic church, much less teach in a Catholic school.  Lisa, if a sperm and an egg joining isn’t a new human life, why the heck would you need any form of birth control?  Because someone sprinkles the magic fairy dust of implantation and NOW “poof” it’s a pregnancy?  Please.  Whatever happened to science?  She also doesn’t seem to grasp how abortifacients work.  Unless you know what you’re talking about, it might be nice to take a seat.  Even if her determination of life were correct, yes, abortifacients would still be abortifacients because, while they’re supposed to prevent implantation, they do not always do so. Sometimes they scrape off the newly implanted child or they cause the uterine lining to slough off regardless.  She’s wrong on when life begins, but she’s doubly wrong on abortifacients.  I mean, doesn’t she understand that even the scientific community classifies them as such?  Duh!  And, again, she’s contradicting Church teaching so why is she coming to Christ the King, a Church claiming to be Catholic?

Father Padraig Greene

Fr. Padraig Greene was arrested in 1999 by an undercover officer for lewd conduct at a city park frequented by children. He spent two days in jail and was released on $1000 bail to a rehabilitation program. The police report can be seen here. Father Greene was stationed at Christ the King parish when this incident occurred. He still works in the diocese as the parish relationship director with Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services.

This one has always baffled the faithful in the Oakland Diocese.  Just the fact that people knew about this, it was never refuted, and you can read the police report on-line seems scandalous enough to count him out of public ministry. Seriously, you kind of lose a little credibility as a moral authority when you drive from Pleasant Hill to Oakland to masturbate in a public restroom and don’t bother to stop when someone walks in on you. Liberals love to talk about “pedophile priests,” but when one of their liberal buddies gets busted for lewd conduct in a children’s sports complex bathroom, we’re suddenly judgmental and they don’t see why we’re worried about an old incident?!  I’m all for conversion, repentance, and forgiveness, but what does it say to our children when you can do something so hideous and then be made pastor?  It’s the very definition of scandal if I ever saw it.  Right up there with Bill Clinton in the White House. 

Luke Hansen, SJ, was an associate editor at America Magazine and is now an intern with FutureChurch, a pro-women’s ordination organization lobbying for ordination of women to the diaconate. His topic in the series of talks? The Ministry and Leadership of Women in the Church.

You don’t work for FutureChurch unless you want women in the priesthood.  Enough said. You want to talk “women’s role in the Church?”  I’d be happy to come in and handle that from a Catholic perspective.  It’s nothing but glorious!  I might leave people a little less bitter and jealous than Sr. Joan or the America Magazine crew.

Father Paulson Mundanmani, pastor of Christ the King parish, has been on sabbatical for some time and will return on October 1, the same date of Sr. Joan Chittister’s talk. It is not known if he is aware of the upcoming slate of speakers at his parish, but he is scheduled as one of the speakers in the series.

We had hoped that Fr. Paulson’s appointment signaled the end of this silliness.  I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt, since he’s been on sabbatical, but I hope he comes home and immediately gets his “associates” in line with Catholicism.

The Oakland Diocese has made some strides in the last few years.  I’m hoping that Bishop Barber will start requiring speakers to be vetted by the diocese.  It would be nice to hope that the pastors are doing their jobs, but hey, they do go on sabbatical sometimes (and some really don’t have a problem with these speakers).  A requirement like this would do a lot to keep these wacky speakers from undoing all the good that’s been done in one fell swoop.

If you have further evidence of why these speakers are inappropriate, please pass it along to Bishop Barber ( AND Fr. Paulson ( Feel free to send them a link to this post, too.



He Can’t Handle Intrinsic Evils

Seriously, Bishop McElroy can’t handle intrinsic evils or much of the Church’s teachings.  I think those pesky little details just get in his way.

San Diego bishop: forget about intrinsic evils when voting

Bishop Robert McElroy says using “intrinsic evils” not the best standard for deciding how to vote because there are so many of them.

So glad I wasn’t drinking when I read this one.  Can’t you just see him feeling kind of the same way about the teachings of the Church?  Canon Law? Ten Commandments?  “There are just so many of them, it makes my brain hurt, so let’s just ignore them all.” (That it should have been read in the whiniest voice you could muster.)


The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.

The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading.

Not so much, Your Excellency.  I think it’s you and your buddies like Archbishop Cupich who think we’re a little too simplistic to figure this out, so you’re going to “help” us. My guess is you two have done the high-five on social media for this one.

The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts. At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act.

Duh.  They’re not contradicting themselves, you are.  Is there a reason you won’t quote when commenting on “Faithful Citizenship?”  How’s this? 

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

  1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

  2. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

  3. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

See?  You need to look at 36 to clarify 34.  You can’t ever vote for someone who’s pro-abortion if there is a better option or if you are voting for them specifically because of their pro-abortion stance, but you can vote for someone who is pro-abortion if they are the ones who will do the least damage in this area. 

In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Oh, he leaves out one key word: “well.”  They must be guided by their well-formed conscience.

Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.

Note the heavy focus on the “voters must not have the intention of supporting that specific evil.”  He actually did OK there.  And then he goes onto blow it:

This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life.

No. No. No. No. No.  There are some intrinsic evils that have priority.  Anything that deprives life surpasses all others.  If you don’t have life, you have nothing.  Bishop McElroy must have missed this:

  1. The losers in this ethical sea change will be those who are elderly, poor, disabled and politically marginalized. None of these pass the utility test; and yet, they at least have a presence.  They at least have the possibility of organizing to be heard.  Those who are unborn, infirm and terminally ill have no such advantage.  They have no “utility,” and worse, they have no voice.  As we tinker with the beginning, the end and even the intimate cell structure of life, we tinker with our own identity as a free nation dedicated to the dignity of the human person.  When American political life becomes an experiment on people rather than for and by them, it will no longer be worth conducting.  We are arguably moving closer to that day.  Today, when the inviolable rights of the human person are proclaimed and the value of life publicly affirmed, the most basic human right, “the right to life, is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death” (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae], 18).
  1. The nature and urgency of this threat should not be misunderstood. Respect for the dignity of the human person demands a commitment to human rights across a broad spectrum:  “Both as Americans and as followers of Christ, American Catholics must be committed to the defense of life in all its stages and in every condition.”4  The culture of death extends beyond our shores: famine and starvation, denial of health care and development around the world, the deadly violence of armed conflict and the scandalous arms trade that spawns such conflict.  Our nation is witness to domestic violence, the spread of drugs, sexual activity which poses a threat to lives, and a reckless tampering with the world’s ecological balance.  Respect for human life calls us to defend life from these and other threats.  It calls us as well to enhance the conditions for human living by helping to provide food, shelter and meaningful employment, beginning with those who are most in need.  We live the Gospel of Life when we live in solidarity with the poor of the world, standing up for their lives and dignity.  Yet abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.  They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely “the poorest of the poor.”  They are endorsed increasingly without the veil of euphemism, as supporters of abortion and euthanasia freely concede these are killing even as they promote them.  Sadly, they are practiced in those communities which ordinarily provide a safe haven for the weak — the family and the healing professions.  Such direct attacks on human life, once crimes, are today legitimized by governments sworn to protect the weak and marginalized.

    Just in case you didn’t know, the definition of preeminent is “surpassing all others.”  And I, Bishop McElroy, believe you missed this in the document you speak of but never link to:


  1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

  2. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3

  3. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. The current and projected extent of environmental degradation has become a moral crisis especially because it poses a risk to humanity in the future and threatens the lives of poor and vulnerable human persons here and now. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

While we follow both, you seem to fall right into the temptation mention when you directly contradicting number 28 .  You’re playing the “it’s just one issue among many” card to the hilt in your little statement.

Even more important, a fatal shortcoming of the category of intrinsic evil as a foundation for prioritizing the major elements of the political common good lies in the fact that while the criterion of intrinsic evil identifies specific human acts that can never be justified, it is not a measure of the relative gravity of evil in human or political acts. Some intrinsically evil acts are less gravely evil than other intrinsically evil actions.

Riiiggghhhhtttt!  Did you read what you just wrote?  In fact, the Church has shown us (just like the USCCB did above) the ones that get priority.  You, however, seem to want to downplay these for a reason.  Why is that? 

Intrinsically evil action can also be less gravely evil than other actions that do not fall under the category of intrinsic evil. For example, telling any lie is intrinsically evil, while launching a major war is not.  But it would be morally obtuse to propose that telling a minor lie to constituents should count more in the calculus of voting than a candidate’s policy to go to war.

And, Bishop McElroy?  Nobody is comparing the two.  This is what we like to call a red-herring.  It is just you trying to use an action that isn’t happening to downplaying the severity of the preeminent intrinsic evils that the Church has laid out. 

It is the gravity of evil or good present in electoral choices that is primarily determinative of their objective moral character and their contribution to or detraction from the common good. Moreover, because voting is a complex moral action involving mitigating circumstances, a vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils often does not involve illicit cooperation in those acts. For these reasons the category of intrinsic evil cannot provide a comprehensive moral roadmap for prioritizing the elements of the common good for voting.

We don’t need more of a road map than already given to us.  The person we should vote for should pass the test of rejecting the preeminent intrinsic evils of our time which, again, as our very own USCCB has stated, are the no brainer offenses against life.  That is PREEMINENT.  I’m not sure how many ways the Church has to say it before Bishop McElroy stop trying to confuse the voters that when two candidates are pro-choice, you can’t ever vote for the worse one, but you may be able to vote for the one who will do the least damage in this area.  If two candidates are apples to apples in this area, then you should go on to look at all of the other issues that go along with the dignity of life.