NcR in the “Crucify Him!” Crowd? They Were the Majority, After All!

NcR (National catholic Reporter, Not Catholic Reporter, National catholic Fishwrap, National Catholic Distorter – the nickname list keeps growing) knows the end is near for the “big fight” they’ve had going on in their minds over who the Catholic Church must or mustn’t fire. Sorry NcR, you lose. You still don’t get to dictate to the Church, the Supreme Court, or any of the other entities you megalomaniacs would like to.

Here’s another stab by Jamie Manson (

Catholic schools must refuse to fire LGBT employees

Jamie L. Manson  |  Jul. 29, 2015 Grace on the Margins

First comment? Jamie how about you just retitle your column to “How Far Can I Go Past the Margins Before I Admit I’ve Joined the Heretics?” There’s no “Grace” involved. There’s just you, acting like a petulant teenager, pushing the limits of obedience.

It’s beginning to feel like every week brings a new story about the firing of an LGBT employee from a Catholic institution.

Really? Every week? Can you say “exaggeration?” I realize that you might think that ALL teachers fired suffer from same-sex attraction, but you might be confusing the reasons some were fired. You can Google (or use some much less offensive search engine), but I think you might have a bit of trouble finding those weekly stories.

The most recent well-publicized termination happened earlier this month at Waldron Mercy Academy in Philadelphia. The school declined to renew the contract of Margie Winters, the school’s director of religious studies, when it came to light that she is in a same-sex marriage.

Winters, who has been with the school for eight years, says her administrators were well aware that she was married to a woman. It wasn’t until two parents complained to the Philadelphia archdiocese that she was terminated.

Well, thanks for something I hadn’t even noticed before: she was the school’s director of religious studies??? The school’s director of religious studies who was publicly committing a mortal sin with no intent to stop?!? She was so astute in her knowledge of religious studies that she didn’t notice that little part in the Catholic Catechism where it says that homosexual acts are gravely evil?? Winner!

Now, in Margie’s defense, she shouldn’t have been hired in the first place. That said, Jamie Manson seems to be neglecting to tell you the fact that the principal told her to make sure that her private life didn’t become public. Apparently Margie managed to do that for quite a while until two parents found out and rightfully complained that it might not be too consistent with the Catholic education for which they were paying!!! Those mean old parents! Imagine their nerve, expecting the Catholic Faith to not be contradicted by example in said Catholic school.

In the wake of Winters’ firing, many commentators have suggested that bishops and Catholic institutions need to show greater mercy and compassion in dealing with its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.

How about mercy for the souls of the children who are being harmed by other peoples’ lifestyle choices and those who are simultaneously being denied authentic Catholic teaching? Heaven forbid we think about them! Let’s just focus on those who would like to contradict the Catholic identity of the schools at which they teach.

Waldron Mercy did show sensitivity and acceptance of their lesbian employee. They kept Winters on staff and valued her contributions to the students and the school community.

Again, Ms. Manson, let’s just admit the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy they had in place worked until Ms. Winters simply didn’t abide by it. Don’t act like it was a sudden about-face on the part of the school. Ms. Winters freely admits she was told not to let her relationship become public with the students and parents.  This has been reported in other publications but, not so surprisingly, not by NcR.  (

But once the complaint was made to the archdiocese, Waldron Mercy, like most Catholic institutions caught in a similar dilemma, felt forced to terminate their employee.

Like I said, she should have never been hired in the first place, since it was such a conflict of interest.  Parents were inevitably going to find out and be upset.

Winters’ story sheds light on an important and overlooked truth: Even a Catholic institution that strives to be inclusive and nurturing can’t protect an LGBT employee. As long as Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that same-sex relationships are sinful and a violation of God’s plan for humanity, LGBT employees will not be safe in their jobs in Catholic institutions.

Uh, right. You don’t get to advertise for Pepsi when you work for Coke. How many times have you heard that people teach by example? All the time, unless it has to do with some liberal cause. Then, of course, you’re not to watch what they are doing. You are just supposed to embrace it because they’re not actually teaching.

Nevertheless, it is important to examine why Waldron Mercy’s administrators may have felt compelled to fire Winters.

At this point, I just have to ask why every sentence of “Grace on the Margins” is its own paragraph. I mean, I’m far from a grammar snob, but this is just ridiculous! Sorry, just the homeschool mom in me. You know that it’s bad when I actually notice it, despite my lack of a master’s from Yale.

The possible answer can be gleaned from a letter sent to parents by the school’s principal, Nell Stetser. According to Philadelphia magazine, Stetser praised Winters’ contribution to the school but explained, “As WMA’s principal, however, my duty is to protect our school’s future. In the Mercy spirit, many of us accept life choices that contradict current Church teachings, but to continue as a Catholic school, Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings.

Near the conclusion of the letter, Stetser writes, “I realize some disagree with my decision. I believe, however, I have acted in the best interest of the Waldron Mercy community and preserved our heritage as a Catholic school. We are not alone in this plight.”

While not saying it explicitly, Stetser’s letter strongly suggests that a serious threat was looming over Waldron Mercy if they refused to fire Winters. Though few Catholic schools will go public about it, the truth is that many of them are forced to fire LGBT employees because the presiding bishop threatens to revoke their canonical status.

“I have no fact regarding any threats, but I’m going to say that it looks like the mean old patriarchy made them do it.” Really, Ms. Manson? Your lack of Catholicism and integrity is showing.   Personally, I would find it very nice if the Catholic identity of every Catholic school dissenting against Church teaching were threatened (*cough* Georgetown *cough*), but more likely the diocese pointed out that it was contradictory, and the school accepted that advice.

According to Canon 803 §3, “No school is to bear the name Catholic school without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.” That “competent ecclesiastical authority” is the bishop who presides over the diocese in which the school is located, even if a religious community sponsors the school.

Oh, for heaven’s sake! If you’re going to quote Canon Law, let’s really quote it, shall we? You quoted the part that fits your conspiracy theory but conveniently left out the bishop’s DUTY in the matter. Let me enlighten you:

Can. 804 §1. The Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever or are provided through the various instruments of social communication are subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it.

  • 2. The local ordinary is to be concerned that those who are designated teachers of religious instruction in schools, even in non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill.

Can. 805 For his own diocese, the local ordinary has the right to appoint or approve teachers of religion and even to remove them or demand that they be removed if a reason of religion or morals requires it.

Ms. Manson then goes on to try to pull at the faithful’s heartstrings:

A loss of canonical status would, of course, have financial repercussions, such as the loss of funding or even the loss of the school’s property. Even more tragically, it has sacramental consequences. It is unlikely that the Eucharist or the sacrament of reconciliation could be celebrated at the school, for example.

Bahahaha! Do you really expect us to believe that you are worried about the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Reconciliation??? That is rich! If you were truly worried about that, wouldn’t you also be worried about the soul of Margie Winters and the children who are confused by her public witness of dissent? Let’s be a little honest. The only sin that exists for you is when Catholics uphold the teachings of the Church.   I really don’t think confession is high on your priority list. You’d actually have to believe in sin. You should have stuck with the money angle. Now that’s believable.

It is unclear what role Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput had in the termination of Margie Winters and whether he, in fact, threatened to revoke Waldron Mercy’s canonical status. In media statements, the archdiocese denied it had any involvement with the firing, but a statement Chaput released praised the school for the action and does suggest that the school’s canonical status may have been in jeopardy.

“Schools describing themselves as Catholic take on the responsibility of teaching and witnessing the Catholic faith in a manner true to Catholic belief,” Chaput wrote.

“I’m very grateful to the Religious Sisters of Mercy and to the principal and board members of Waldron Mercy for taking the steps to ensure that the Catholic faith is presented in a way fully in accord with the teaching of the Church,” Chaput continued. “They’ve shown character and common sense at a moment when both seem to be uncommon.”

Thanks for clarifying, again, that you have no factual evidence for your suppositions. Also, “Boo!” for parsing of Archbishop Chaput.   Here’s the whole thing. Not sure why you chose to leave stuff out and rearrange a bit, but I do have some ideas! (Emphasis on what NcR chose to leave out is all mine! Anyone surprised the “honesty” part was ditched?)

Schools describing themselves as Catholic take on the responsibility of teaching and witnessing the Catholic faith in a manner true to Catholic belief. There’s nothing complicated or controversial in this. It’s a simple matter of honesty.

I’m very grateful to the Religious Sisters of Mercy and to the principal and board members of Waldron Mercy for taking the steps to ensure that the Catholic faith is presented in a way fully in accord with the teaching of the Church. They’ve shown character and common sense at a moment when both seem to be uncommon.

Ms. Manson could have saved us all a lot of time and summed it all up in this next sentence instead of repeating it over and over with conjecture tossed into the mix.

We don’t know what role the archdiocese actually played in this specific case;

Yes, you’ve already mentioned the fact you don’t have a clue.

however, as anyone who’s worked in the church knows, the views and priorities of a bishop or archbishop who is a strong leader, which Chaput certainly is, are well known within his administration. In his post-action statement, Chaput makes clear his thoughts on these types of cases in general: “There’s nothing complicated or controversial in this.”

Post-action statement? They just can’t help but imply, can they?

If a school feels forced to choose between terminating a person’s career and forfeiting its Catholic identity, which the principal’s statement seems to say, that would be an especially menacing form of bullying.

Jamie – can you please provide me a list of schools who’ve had to forfeit their Catholic identity under Archbishop Chaput? I mean, it happens all the time, right? You folks over there at NcR seem to enjoy whipping up hysteria.

Darker still is the irony that a Catholic school would have to prove its identity by destroying an LGBT employee’s livelihood.

Darker still? If you were my teenager, my husband would be telling you to drop the drama just about now. Yes, we get it. You don’t want schools to follow Canon Law nor do you want them to have a Catholic identity. You just want them to be expensive secular schools full of little elitists like yourself. Gotcha!

So what can be done in the face of so much injustice?

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” No amount of mercy or increased sensitivity will defeat the injustice and indignity of the church’s teachings on LGBT people and same-sex relationships. Only a change in doctrine will protect the jobs of LGBT employees.

Oh, no, she didn’t! To my black friends, I apologize on behalf of this liberal idiot for invoking MLK to support the LGBT movement. I’m reasonably sure she just offended at least half of the King family. She also might want to “Google” Alveda and Bernice King before she even remotely suggests that MLK’s struggles and the struggles of the LGBT club are on the same planet. Please feel free to email her your thoughts at

Next, Jamie, you might want to read up on Charles Lwanga. I’m sure he’s not so popular over there at NcR, either.

Finally, Doctrine = Truth! How is it that you write for a publication with “Catholic” in its name and don’t understand that TRUTH DOES NOT CHANGE! I mean, this is Catholicism 101!

It is time for us to encourage school leaders, both religious and lay, to refuse to comply with demands that they fire LGBT employees.

Where are the demands that LGBT employees be fired? Like we’ve all said ad nauseam, we don’t want to know your sins. Don’t make them public (as Margie Winters didn’t do for 8 years) and you’d have no reason to be fired.

Many Catholic schools were founded by women religious. The sisters have a remarkable history of protesting nuclear weapons, racial injustice, income inequality, prison conditions, human trafficking, the death penalty and environmental degradation.

Perhaps she missed the lovely sisters at Marin Catholic High School walking out as LGBT literature was being handed out. Now, those ladies are awesome! Hope we get more of them!

With such a legacy behind them, why would Catholic schools willingly participate in the radical injustice of terminating the vocations of its devoted LGBT employees and subject them to such financial instability and deep humiliation?

Wait! First she brings up MLK, and now she’s comparing women religious with “married” lesbian teachers? Somebody might want to teach her what “similar” means.

Most Catholic schools seem to have a clear advantage over the bishops. The laity has far more respect for women religious than they do for the hierarchy. The majority of Catholics in the United States strongly support the rights of LGBT people. And more than enough Catholic theologians and ethicists have argued cogently for the full inclusion and equality of LGBT people in the church.

Uh, where do women religious come into it? Are you under the impression Margie Winters is a woman religious? This is coming out of nowhere. Also, your “more than enough” line of thinking really shows your lack of Catholic knowledge again. “More than enough” people argued that killing Christ was a good thing. I suppose you’d have been right there with the crowd yelling, “Crucify Him!” Again, Truth is Truth! It doesn’t change by popular vote.

Why, then, not call the bishops’ bluffs? Imagine the pushback and negative press a bishop would get if he stripped a Catholic school of its identity for refusing to fire an LGBT employee. Imagine the momentum that could be built and the empowering precedent it could set for other schools facing the same turmoil.

What bluff??? Do you actually think the Church should be swayed by “negative press”? Of course you do! That’s why you and the rest of the NcR ilk are trying so darn hard. You are so full of yourselves! You seem to think that you are going to collapse 2,000 years of Catholicism with “negative press.” Move along!

Yes, the risks of disobeying a bishop are serious, but unless we as a community of women religious, Catholic school board members and administrators, parents and students, and progressive Catholics join together to say “no more” to these unjust doctrines and degrading firings, substantive change will not happen.

Are you a card-carrying member of “Stop Patriarchy?” You’ve quite glaringly excluded those pesky priests. Also, seriously, how do you study Catholic theology at Yale and be so woefully ignorant? (That was rhetorical!)

Yes, Jamie, disobedience to a bishop is serious stuff.  It’s also serious stuff to encourage others to disobey.  The penalty goes far beyond loss of Catholic identity but it doesn’t seem you comprehend anything of the spiritual sort.

For the sake of the integrity of our church and the future of Catholic education, it is time to defy the threats and bullying, have the courage of our convictions, and refuse to perpetuate this injustice inside the walls of our Catholic schools.

For the sake of integrity??? You packed away your integrity a long time ago, Jamie. How about, for the sake of integrity, you admit that you don’t have a clue about the teachings of the Church that you are trying to subvert on a daily basis? The only bully here is you and your pals who think you should be able to walk in the doors of a Catholic school and have everything spin around your whims instead of Canon Law and Catholic Tradition.


Magic Queer Powers!

Hoo boy! I just couldn’t let the week go by without commenting on a letter from the now former Sacred Heart Cathedral teacher, Abi Basch ( While reading it, my first thought is, “Yeah, none of these teachers have an agenda and all just want to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church.” (I almost typed all that with a straight face!) Basch is the epitome of what’s wrong in the SF Archdiocesan Schools right now. I actually applaud her for being honest, for once, although she simply should have left because her ideologies clash with the teachings of the school she is supposed to represent. She clearly made no effort to teach her students about the Catholic Church, nor, as you can see from Hugh’s letter found at the link above, did she make an effort to correct his misconceptions of Church teachings.

From Basch’s letter:

Yes it’s true — I am leaving SHC and moving to Los Angeles to teach at the Buckley School.

(By the way, Basch is also the person who registered the infamous domain name. Hon, since you are leaving, can I have it now so I can put it out of its misery?)

Also true — I am doing it in large part because I do not want to work without state and federal workplace discrimination protections that most Californians enjoy. And another truth — I AM LGBT. Now that I do not work for Archbishop Cordileone, I can say to my students, their families, my colleagues — without fear of losing my job: I am not only your ally. I understand your magic queer powers and the dangers you face when others fear their might — because I have them too.

Look out for those magic queer powers, people! This kind of bizarre quote is one reason people like me are opposed to teachers like her. No, we don’t want the phrase “magic queer powers” used in the classroom by our social studies teachers. Does somebody really think there’s a problem with that objection? I mean, really, this is one of the voices of a supposed movement and we get, “They’re scared of our magic queer powers!” It’s just, well, sad.

 Hugh Mac Neill — you wrote me such a beautiful open letter for the #teachacceptance Phil Ting hearing yesterday — thank you for letting me post it here. (Everyone read it! You will cry, I promise.)

Oh, you’ll cry alright. Not a single word about the Faith except to misquote it. No mention of God. The only person ever on a cross to this young man is Miss Basch.

I am so proud of you for being who you are and standing up for justice. I am moved by all of my students and colleagues, the parents (!!!) and gay and civil rights activists that have rallied around the #teachacceptance cause. I have learned boundless amounts from you. You have taught me about integrity and strength, and made me a better, fiercer, more compassionate human.

Lady, you just used the term “magic queer powers”. If that’s fierce and compassionate, you’ve missed some part of history in your “social studies” education.

I am grateful to SHC for the many ways it has tried to protect its LGBT population, even in the face of pressures from the Arch. And I am very much looking forward to being at Buckley, where my sexual orientation and experience fighting for social justice have been not only welcomed but celebrated. My love and support will continue with all of you.

Give me a break! You’ve all been whipped into a frenzy, but you are the one who has created pressures. Clearly, you just wanted to bring your “cause” into the classroom of a school which was established by a Church innately opposed to your efforts because she cares about souls. Not quite sure if you believe in souls and an eternal afterlife, Miss Basch, but your employer does. So, please, toddle off to corrupt young souls elsewhere with your lack of knowledge or conviction of the Catholic Faith, just don’t do it in a Catholic school. That has been the point all along. If you have an agenda, go to a place that welcomes it. Don’t expect to rail against an employer and have that employer give you the thumbs up!

You had a perfect “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in place, Miss Basch, but that’s not what you wanted. You wanted to openly undermine the teachings of the employer for whom you worked. I suppose this isn’t totally your fault. You and your ilk got away with it for so long because nobody ever seemed to care quite enough about the eternal souls of the children in the diocese. Clearly, Archbishop Cordileone does because he’s willing to go through hell to ensure these students are going to receive the One True Faith instead of the watered down version they’ve clearly been receiving up until now. Thank you, Archbishop Cordileone, for leading our Church through these difficult times.

The Tale of Two Things

Two interesting things ran across my desk last week. The first is a video of Assemblyman Phil Ting’s “hearing”: Please give it a good watch to see the crud we deal with in the SF Archdiocese, but make sure you don’t eat right before you watch. The teachers seem to have a problem with the newly discovered (by them) words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Why? Probably because they have never bothered to study the teachings of the Church and understand how they are there for our spiritual well-being. This, of course, is not limited to those with same-sex attraction. They also have no regard for the Catholic Church’s teachings on life or sexual morality in general.

Contrast that attitude with an email I received last week. I am reprinting it with permission from “Tom from Michigan.” I asked his permission because I feel it describes the truth of the Catholic Church’s teachings and her love for our brothers and sisters with same-sex attraction. I know it exemplifies the love of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone!

I want all people suffering from same-sex attraction to find the peace and love Tom found in the arms of the Church. Tom has clearly gone past the sound bites and studied the actual Church teachings. Thank you, Tom! Personally, I hope you might start a blog on your journey to the Church. Like I’ve said before, when I want to learn how to deal with struggles in my married life and raising children, I find people who have dealt with the same struggles. I hope more people with same-sex attractions that have found hope, comfort and peace in the Church can help those with the same struggles.

Tom from Michigan writes:

I just want to tell you how much I enjoy your comments.

I would also like to share something. I am a 56-year-old man who suffers from same-sex attraction. I was initiated into the Church on June 1, 2014. Before September, 2013, I had never stepped foot inside a Catholic church. I was, in fact, an agnostic secular humanist. God used Pope Francis to light a fire in me, and the more I learned about the Catholic Church, the more I realized it is the true Church of God and where I wanted to be.

In my two-year journey, I have encountered nothing but kindness and acceptance in the Catholic church and her members. In fact, I feel safer as a “gay” man among Catholics than I do as a devout Catholic among “gay” people. I haven’t told everyone about my sexual orientation, but those who I have told have accepted me with open arms (including one Cardinal who is general portrayed by the media as “hateful”–he is in fact one of the kindest, charitable men on the planet). My few remaining LGBTQI (it’s hard to remember all those letters) acquaintances have not been at all supportive in my journey of faith.

My point in sharing this is that people should not assume that Dignity and New Ways speak for all Catholics who suffer from same-sex attraction. Nor should they assume that every one of us (Catholic or not) identifies as a member of the so-called LGBTQI community, or that HRC and GLAAD speak for us. Personally, I belong to Courage and I wish every bishop in America would support Courage and its mission.

Keep writing! Keep defending the true faith and the true Church! Keep defending Archbishop Cordileone!

God’s Blessings, Tom

Wonderfully written, Tom! Thank  you so much for allowing me to share.  For everyone else, if you are suffering from same-sex attraction, please look into the Courage Roman Catholic Apostolate at I know several of the priests involved in my area, and they are all wonderful, holy, men! We are all in this Catholic life together and the Catholic Church has something for everyone to help us lead a life of heroic virtue no matter what life throws at you!

Assemblyman Who?

Expect the next couple of weeks to resemble an exorcist pouring holy water on a demon. It’s going to be ugly with the liberals desperately grasping at straws despite a Supreme Court ruling that squashes their daydream that the Catholic Church is going against “settled law.” It’s also going to get annoying watching no–name liberals attempting to create a reputation for themselves trying to slay the Archbishop. Somehow they’ve missed the fact that THEY are the ones going against settled law in their battle against religious freedom. Of course, it’s not likely to stop them from suing the heck out of the archdiocese in attempt to win by bankruptcy, but they’ve missed the fact that we won’t let that happen. What is the latest straw they are grasping for? Assemblyman Phil Ting, one of the crafters of a letter to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone that stated his handbook wording was in “conflict with settled areas of law and foment a discriminatory environment in the communities we serve,” has decided to hold a “Public Hearing on Ministerial Exceptions” on July 23rd. (Please feel free to give Mr. Ting an earful at 415-557-2312.) Katrina Trinko penned a nice piece on Ting and Company’s insane attempt to interject themselves into the Catholic Church governance and the Archbishop’s response to it ( ). By the way, in case you missed it, here is the Archbishop’s response to Ting and Company (—february-19-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2):

Dear Legislators, I am in receipt of your letter of February 17, 2015, expressing your concerns about the negotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the teachers’ union of our four Archdiocesan High Schools. Allow me to respond by reflecting with you on the real issues that are at stake here. First of all, I always believe that it is important, before making a judgment on a situation or anyone’s action, that one first obtain as complete and accurate information as possible. To this end, a number of documents and videos giving accurate and more complete information about this contentious issue are available on the website of our Archdiocese. I would encourage you to avail yourselves of these resources, as they will help to clear up a lot of misinformation being circulated about it (such as, for example, the falsehood that the morality clauses apply to the teachers’ private life). The next thing I would like to mention is actually a question: would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general? On the other hand, if you knew a brilliant campaign manager who, although a Republican, was willing to work for you and not speak or act in public contrary to you or your party – would you hire such a person? If your answer to the first question is “no,” and to the second question is “yes,” then we are actually in agreement on the principal point in debate here. Now let’s say that this campaign manager you hired, despite promises to the contrary, starts speaking critically of your party and favorably of your running opponent, and so you decide to fire the person. Would you have done this because you hate all Republicans outright, or because this individual, who happens to be a Republican, violated the trust given to you and acted contrary to your mission? If the latter, then we are again in agreement on this principle. My point is: I respect your right to employ or not employ whomever you wish to advance your mission. I simply ask the same respect from you. Sincerely, Most Rev. Salvatore J. Cordileone Archbishop of San Francisco

In 2012, the Supreme Court issued a ruling (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) which we’d hope the lower courts would follow. Here’s a really good analysis of the unanimous ruling and the opinion that spells out ultimate victory for Archbishop Cordileone and the Archdiocese of San Francisco:( The bottom line?

It specifically affirmed “a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.” And it grounded its holding in the proposition that “the text of the First Amendment itself . . . gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.

So who is violating “settled law,” Mr. Ting?

The decision was, strikingly, unanimous: no one disagreed with Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion for the Court. The only separate opinions were concurring ones, suggesting further extensions or specific applications of the Court’s reasoning. On a Court that has often been bitterly divided, this expression of unanimity is truly remarkable.

If you’ve read the decision and opinions ( ), you’d know that it was quite remarkable. The liberals would like you to believe that Perich lost only because she was named as a minister, but if you read the Supreme Court opinions, they said that this particular case was a no brainer because she was indeed labeled a minister. Furthermore, they were not going to tell a church who did and who didn’t perform in a ministerial capacity, and they specifically stated that teachers would be considered such. Whoops! Another hope of those attacking Archbishop Cordileone is that somehow a teacher’s union is going to trump Religious Freedom. It’s been said that the fact that Bishop Vasa and Bishop Barber won their handbook battles is because the teachers in those dioceses were not unionized. Well, which is it? Is it against the law, or is it because there’s a union? Well, the Supreme Court says it’s a Religious Freedom issue, and Bishops Vasa and Barber haven’t landed in jail, so we know it’s not against “settled law.” I don’t think you’ll find case-law that says that a union ever trumps Religious Freedom. If that were the case, the Catholic Church would be totally and utterly against unions, right?

UPDATED: NcR Needs a Time Out!

Holy smokes! National catholic Reporter (small “c” no accident) seem to be hell-bent on going down with the ship! I think I’m going to change my pet name for them to “Not Catholic Reporter.” It’s just gotten that ridiculous. Seriously, it decided it’s going to be the number one mouthpiece for the anti-USCCB folks? I’m a little shocked that they’ve done a piece tying the entire editorial staff to the same millstone, but they have indeed (

In another way, however, this broad new acceptance may be as transformative in its own way of our understanding of something deeply personal and mysterious as recent explorations have been transformative of our understanding, in equally jarring ways, of an infinitely vast and endlessly mystifying universe.

OK, I’m just going to ask this? What…the…H E Double Hockey Sticks does that mean??? Anyone? Really? What are they trying to say? I feel like a new age psychologist on acid wrote this. Thanks for the comic relief.

In each case, old certainties that once comfortably contained our presumptions are shattered. Even those who marvel at or celebrate such new realities might, at the same time, find them unsettling.

Uh, yeah, thousands of years of God’s Law just went out the window. You bet we find them unsettling. I’m going to bust this out again – Thanks Captain Obvious!

 The Catholic church, which has used some of the most severe language of major denominations in its condemnation of homosexuality, labeling those with a homosexual orientation “intrinsically disordered,” is especially challenged by the ruling.

Really? Homosexuals have been condemned? Mind showing us a citation for that? Honestly, why do you even want to have “Catholic” in your name again? You clearly are against most doctrine.

At least its leaders are, for it has become clear in recent years that when it comes to believers, Catholics are among the most accepting of homosexuality. In terms of same-sex marriage, according to recent Pew Research polling, “Among Catholics and white mainline Protestants, roughly six-in-ten now express support for same-sex marriage.”

OK, we all know by now the Pew Research poll was an outlier ( Still desperately clinging to that one, NcR? Just for the sake of making you feel better about your downward spiral, sanity-wise, let’s say Pew was right (which is a bigger stretch of logic than their poll). If 99% of people are wrong, does that make them right? I seem to recall a story about Noah, and another about Lot. Pesky, but if you call yourselves Catholics, you might want to flip through the pages of the Bible once in a while.

Churches certainly don’t run on polling data, but the bishops should at least be informed of what the flock is thinking. And the majority of the flock is not in agreement with assertions such as those voiced by Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., who called the decision “a tragic error.”

Great, Carnac! Tell me what am I thinking right now? That you are all pompous idiots? Right on the money.

Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, compared Obergefell v. Hodges to Roe v. Wade and said that just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage. “Neither decision is rooted in the truth and, as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The comparison with Roe is simply way off base. Obergefell is not a matter of life and death. The case thus stated by Kurtz also places the conference in the posture of combatant — with everyone: gays and lesbians, their families, government structures, not to mention the church itself in the expression of the many Catholics who disagree.

And here’s how we know you wouldn’t know Catholicism if it hit you with a 2×4. Yes, it is a matter of life and death. You have NO concept of eternal life or eternal damnation. The Catholic Church is not called to be in union with everyone. Everyone is called to be in union with the Catholic Church. Can you really be this out of touch with Catholic teaching?

Further, if the church’s experience with Roe is any indication, taking the combative approach will mean endless years of litigation and lobbying, convincing few and alienating many while further depleting whatever political capital the church might have left.

I’m sorry. Did anyone catch the news the last couple of days? Let’s see – the Israelites wandered 40 years in the desert, and now it’s taken about 40 years to see Planned Parenthoods closing left and right and the National Organization going up in flames. Sorry, NcR. God’s people are very, very patient.

The Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage has, like the Affordable Care Act before it, raised new questions about religious freedom — how it is interpreted in the course of day-to-day life, and who can claim it as a means of exempting themselves, individuals or businesses, from following the law. These complex matters will demand more of the bishops than a foot-stomping “no.”

Nope, not really. It’s time to come out with all guns a blazing. If this line in the sand is crossed, it might take a lot longer than 40 years to reclaim this land. I think we’ve all learned that impossible is quite possible. We’re not taking anything for granted anymore – especially our Religious Freedom. It’s quite clear that if the “powers that be” in this country are going to go after the Little Sisters of the Poor, they’re going to go after us all.

As Jesuit Fr. Tom Reese points out in his analysis, a combative stance is not the only option. First, the church’s treatment of divorced and remarried people is an apt comparison to gay couples. Divorce and remarriage is legal in all states, but the church is not required to perform such weddings. Ministers remain free to denounce divorce. At the same time, it is rare that Catholic institutions fire people who divorce and remarry; moreover, they and their new spouses often receive benefits. Such consideration is not viewed as an endorsement of a lifestyle.

Further, Reese points out, “In Catholic morality, there is nothing to prohibit a Catholic judge or clerk from performing a same-sex marriage. Nor is there any moral obligation for a Catholic businessperson to refuse to provide flowers, food, space and other services to a same-sex wedding.” Bishops, even those intent on railing against the decision, need to make that point clear to their people.

First of all, does it bother anyone that Fr. Reese uses Thomas Reese in his articles? Dropping “Fr.” from his byline really should be a tip-off. Next, he’s a Jesuit. God bless those priests who still follow St. Ignatius, but odds are he’s into subverting faithful Catholicism. Next, let’s just be clear: “Thomas Reese” doesn’t want the Church to fight for any core Catholic principles like marriage, life, etc. He really does everything he can to step over the Catholic “line” without actually saying what he’s thinking lest he be silenced. He already had to leave America Magazine for not defending the Faith (he simply reported both sides, don’tcha know?).

Fortunately for U.S. Catholics, examples exist of other episcopal voices who took a more measured and prudent approach. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., wrote that the meaning of marriage for the church was the same post-Supreme Court ruling as it was before.

The practical challenge for the church and its agencies, he said, is the need “to balance two important values, the provision of appropriate health care benefits for all church personnel including their spouses, and the avoidance of the perception that by doing so we accept a definition of marriage and spouse contrary to faith and revealed truth.

Hmmm…the editorial staff is cherry picking. Perhaps they didn’t notice this part:

The ancient Maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin” is central to our behavior because it refers to all human beings. The Lord asks us to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect,” but he does so in reference to how we are to love one another (Matthew 5:48). In the Sacraments, he also gives us the grace to do so. The Church has and always will meet people where they are to bring them closer to Christ.

At the same time, to condemn any sin is not discrimination against the person who commits the sin. Disagreement is not discrimination. We do not force people to agree with us, we ask to be granted the same freedom to hold our beliefs. Catholic teaching on human sexuality is the same for all. We are called to love God and love one another in truth (Matthew 22:36-40; Ephesians 4:15; Philippians 1:27; cf. Gaudium et Spes, 24; Caritas in Veritate, 1-2; Familiaris Consortio, 11 et seq.). (

Another NcR favorite:

 “Bishop Gregory Hartmayer of Savannah, Ga., wrote, “This decision of the Supreme Court is primarily a declaration of civil rights and not a redefinition of marriage as the church teaches.”

He warned that those on either side of the issue are not dispensed “from the obligations of civility toward one another. Nor is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions differ from our own.”

Not a shock. Isn’t it interesting that they’re not quoting from the over 50 bishops who put out other statements? Do you think that maybe the NcR editorial staff are the ones living in the 1970s-fashioned ivory tower and out of touch? I think yes. Can we finally put away the felt banner, bell-bottomed, Birkenstock Catholicism and get back to the Faith of our fathers please.

I guess not, because then they go on to write a long soliloquy to Archbishop Cupich – the prince of ambiguous speak.

In a statement following the decision, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich urged calm and “mature” reflection. “The Church must extend support to all families, no matter their circumstances, recognizing that we are all relatives, journeying through life under the careful watch of a loving God,” he said.

We suspect that for a time, at least, the air will be full of warnings about the ongoing march of a “gay agenda” and threats to everything we have previously understood about marriage. The ruling was certainly due, in part, to the activity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its striving for rights during the past 40 years.

No, Archbishop Cupich, the air hasn’t been full of warnings. It been actually quite full of threats and attacks from those promoting the “gay agenda.” Perhaps you missed these:

Oh, and then there’s this little thing:

Yep, the faithful have absolutely nothing to worry about in the least. How is it that an Archbishop in the United States concludes this ruling is a result of “striving for rights?” Can you really give the alphabet soup community any more accolades for destroying Traditional Marriage? It’s really quite an insult to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks.

But bishops and others should not underestimate the power of human experience nor the depth of insights gleaned in the short period during which parents stopped being embarrassed by their children, and gay children stopped hiding themselves and their sexual orientation.

Repeat after me: “The bishops should uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Was that so hard? Maybe the editorial staff that uses “Catholic” in its name might want to suggest that one? Yes, I know I’m being silly. Why would NcR want to start doing that now? It would be nice, however, if they maybe read the Church’s documents. Here’s one I might suggest. Do you disagree with this NcR?

Cupich’s “take a deep breath” approach seems a far more productive way to sort out the tangle of issues that certainly will unravel in the wake of this decision. The bishops — many of whom like to compare themselves to fathers of a family — might, before they commit to a protracted fight, sit down with gay and lesbian Catholics and their families and respectfully listen to their stories.

Oh, for goodness sake! Yeah, I bet no other bishop besides Cupich, McElroy, and Cardinal O’Malley has ever associated with “gay and lesbian” Catholics. Could you be more condescending?!? Get over your arrogant selves!

Meanwhile, we need to call a halt to actions that will further divide and damage the body of Christ. Almost immediately, different models have surfaced for handling gay marriage in the context of Catholic institutions.

Code for: We just need to let everyone do what they want and forget about that pesky sin stuff.

On one hand, officials at Jesuit-run Fordham University wished J. Patrick Hornbeck and his male spouse “a rich life filled with many blessings” following their marriage the day after the Supreme Court decision.

While noting that church teaching does not support same-sex marriage, a school spokesman said Hornbeck, chairman of the theology department, had a constitutional right to marry, “and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation.”

And this is what they really want. The editorial staff just wants all the bishops to put a nice piece of duct tape over their mouths, sit on their hands and take it. “What can we possibly do? SCOTUS says it’s the “Law of the Land.”

But in the Philadelphia archdiocese, where Archbishop Charles Chaput predicted dire social consequences as a result of the decision, Waldron Mercy Academy decided not to renew the contract of Margie Winters, director of religious education and outreach, because she is married to another woman.

According to a July 8 report on, Waldron Mercy Principal Nell Stetser explained in a letter to parents that the school “recognizes the authority of the archbishop of Philadelphia, especially in the teaching of religion, because we call ourselves Catholic.

According to the report, many of the parents are supportive of Winters, who has worked at the school for about eight years, and they are angry at the archdiocese.

While an archdiocesan spokesman denied that the archdiocese had anything to do with Winters’ dismissal, Stetser said in the letter that “my duty is to protect our school’s future,” and there apparently is no perceived threat from students’ parents.

What’s the point here? The teacher was told to keep her “marital” status quiet. She agreed. After a while, her marital status was made known to some and was thrown into the public realm. Sorry, but according to Canon Law “teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life” ( Are you suggesting that Canon Law be ignored? I’m pretty sure it’s your hope, but are you willing to say it or are you just going to pull a Cupich and ambiguously suggest it?

Fordham’s response stems from the correct understanding of the Supreme Court ruling: It advances societal understanding of equality and non-discrimination. That is something the church can and should embrace. Church leaders certainly shouldn’t fight it.

The Fordham staff are a bunch of dissenters who are going to have to answer for that. Are YOU, editorial staff, suggesting the Catholic Church accepts whatever the Supreme Court says? Really? You might want to re-examine why it’s taken so long to stop the killing of babies in this country. That would be the likes of organizations, publications, etc. like you who are a bunch of wishy-washy people.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision acknowledges a religious exemption in the recognition of same-sex marriages, the meaning of which Catholics need to study and discuss maturely and calmly. It won’t be an easy discussion, but it will be good for the community.

There’s that condescending tone once again. Are you all this smug in person? Do you all think the bishops and cardinals are recent graduates from the local junior colleges? Stop acting like Catholics who disagree with you are a bunch of eight-year-olds you can just pat on the head. Was Christ immature when He overturned the money changers tables? It’s called just anger and whole lot of holy cardinals and bishops are rather calmly expressing their utter grief over the situation in comparison to Christ and the money changers. You are the ones who really need to slap the duct tape on your mouths. A time-out is definitely in order for you.

What we must avoid at all costs is a spate of firings of Catholic high school track coaches and math teachers. We can respect a narrow definition of the ministerial exemption out of respect for religious belief, but the broadening of the definition of “minister” to include schoolteachers, food pantry workers, diocesan accountants and parish musicians is wrong and must be resisted.

Uh, says who? You? Before you spout off as smarter than the bishops, you might want to actually re-read the Hosanna-Tabor decision again. There is no “narrow definition of the ministerial exemption.” That’s something you hope for to undermine Catholic Identity.

Justice Roberts:

The Court, however, does not adopt a rigid for­mula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister. (

Where’s that narrow definition again, editorial staff? At least do a little honest journalism and note that justice after justice said they aren’t deciding who is and who is not a minister. Also, is someone suggesting a diocesan accountant be named a minister? Please. Can you say “overly dramatic?” Back to the NcR:

Furthermore, if state Catholic conferences work to enact laws against discrimination in employment and accommodations based on sexual orientation, that would help heal wounds in the religious community and society at large.

Wait, are you suggesting that the Church work for laws that limit her Religious Freedom to maintain their Catholic Identity? Really, would that shock anyone? I think the editorial staff is hoping the Catholic Church in the United States is going to be the France of the Catholic World. Here’s hoping our cardinals and bishops have learned a little more from history than NcR.

Update: USF Still Drunk but Trying to Pass Sobriety Test!

Just a quick update on my July 6 blog post ( –

Due to Cardinal Newman Society pressure, USF removed their tweets celebrating the SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision.  That said, they still have not removed this one celebrating the SF Pride Parade:

Sadly for them, they will not be able to delete other peoples’ tweets showing the school mascot and some spiffy cards they had made up:

Next time, I will remember two little words: “screen capture”!

Check out Cardinal Newman Society’s article (

Biology Deniers are Great Big Meanies!

It’s just getting more pathetic for those attacking Archbishop Cordileone because they’ve already used their whole arsenal and now they’re left with just out-and-out lies and conjecture to promote their cause. I suppose some have always done this to some extent, but now it’s getting ridiculous. It’s not like I can blame them, though. They really don’t have the smoking gun they just knew they were going to find. All they can find is the Archbishop again and again echoing the Pope and the Church, so all that can come of that is spin. Case in point (

Op-ed: S.F.’s Hateful Bishop Is Dead Wrong About Trans People

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone denies the existence of transgender people. Maybe he should actually meet a trans person before making up his mind.

Let’s see, in the very first line, Tony Garascia writes a lie. When has Archbishop Cordileone ever said there were no transgender people? He’s only stated a biological, scientific fact.  Are we really denying that? They are now, I guess. In the second line, he says Archbishop Cordileone should “actually meet a trans person before making up his mind.” To this I’m going to ask: Mr. Garascia, how do you know the Archbishop hasn’t met a “trans person,” and did you bother to give Archbishop Cordileone the same courtesy when you called him hateful? Have you met with him? Yeah, I’m guessing not.  Chalk it up to hypocrisy.

Misguided and harmful — the easiest way to describe the anti-transgender comments made last month by San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who has a history of targeting LGBT people.

Cordileone’s comment — that “the clear biological fact is that a human being is born either male or female” — suggests a lack of sensitivity to transgender people and no familiarity with gender dysphoria, which mental health professionals treat not as a disorder but as a profound experience of discomfort that an individual experiences with his or her assigned gender.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest, instead, that “trans people” are misguided and harmed, and the fact that you are opposed to a scientific fact shows how misguided and harmful you are. And, yes, up until about 5 minutes ago it has been treated as a disorder. In fact, it was called “Gender Identity Disorder” by and large until very, very recently when that got a little too politically incorrect although many still use it. The reason you are misguided and harmful? You want to help people deny reality. That’s really what it’s come to in our world. “Let’s deny reality, refuse to deal with it, and maybe it will go away.” (It won’t, by the way.) Meanwhile you’ve got Christians on the other side saying, “Hey! You are special. God thought you out in a very special way. God didn’t make a mistake! He made you just as you should be and He loves you and can help you through anything!” Yeah, that sounds really hateful. Color me hateful. That’s exactly what the Church and the Archbishop have taught. Do the Archbishop, the Pope and the Church take issue with the twisting of science and morality? YOU BETCHA!

His comments trivialize the true distress that some people feel when their inner experience of gender does not match their biology. Cordileone seems to want to frame this issue in terms of “culture wars,” based on the idea that so-called liberals have an “anything goes” attitude toward defining gender.

Uh, liberals have an “anything goes” attitude towards just about everything. There is no truth. There is no morality. And there’s definitely no history. It is “anything goes” which has kind of led to the downfall of civilization after civilization. (They’d know that if they hadn’t eliminated history.)

What Cordileone needs to understand is that people do not wake up one day and decide to change their gender, and that being transgender is deeply rooted in who they are from an early age. There is simply a disconnect between the inner experience of the individual concerning how they identify as female or male, and their biology.

Wow! This seems rather simplistic for anyone. Did you get your degrees from a box of Cracker Jacks? Close. Looks like Indiana U and Catholic U (back in the day when those in charge didn’t care so much about Catholic identity). Some of your “colleagues” would disagree with your assessment about the early age. Some present early and some do not. Nor is there any consensus about the cause of the disorder. (BTW, Psychology Today still calls it a disorder. How politically incorrect of them!)

In fact, every major mental health organization insists that gender dysphoria is real and should be taken seriously by parents and health care providers. According to the American Psychiatric Association, the anguish that some transgender people experience with the contrast between how they look on the outside and the gender they identify with can be so intense that they can take extreme measures to reconcile the difference.

Um, yeah! Who DOESN’T take it seriously? Most everyone I know takes it as seriously as a heart attack!  This doesn’t mean that it should be given the thumbs up. One, definitely, need not think that liberals handle it correctly or do right by those afflicted with it. It is a cross.

One wonders if Cordileone has in fact ever met with transgender people, listened to their stories, their pain, and their attempts to live authentically and integrate who they really are into how they function in the society. If he took the time to meet with trans people and consult mainstream researchers and clinicians, he would find that transgender people look to their faith and their churches for acceptance, often feel alienated from their places of worship, face great psychological distress, and are at a greater risk than others for suicide due to rejection.

You’ve already proffered that the Archbishop has not met a person with Gender Identity Disorder.  Got it. You’ve got no proof of that but you’re free to go on with that suggestion. The Catholic Church (I would think you’d know this going to Catholic U, but it really wasn’t the bomb when you were there) cannot accept a transgender lifestyle. It distorts Natural Law which is all good. The Catholic Church does, however, completely embrace those afflicted with that cross. Maybe it’s you who needs to get to know the Church a bit. News flash – the Catholic Church is full of many Catholic psychiatrists and psychologists who also do not agree with you.  I bet some might even have a degree from Catholic U!

In my counseling practice, I have worked with parents of transgender children as they work to accept and embrace their child’s journey. These parents have come to understand that human sexuality, orientation, and gender identification exist on a continuum and that their responsibility toward their children is to listen to their experience and to encourage them to fully accept who they are.

Just out of curiosity, do you advise them in light of Church teaching? My guess is no if you have a problem with Archbishop Cordileone. By the way, you might want to also note you have a problem with Pope Francis.  Writing an article about him next?

The archbishop’s attitude and flippant way of disparaging transgender people and even the LGBT movement unfortunately give Catholics who are struggling with acceptance of an LGBT son or daughter more freedom to minimize and disregard their own child’s feelings. Caitlyn Ryan, the founder of the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, points out that LGBT children who experience significant rejection by their families are eight times as likely to attempt suicide as LGBT children who feel accepted, and are six times more likely to report high levels of depression.

Oh, please, please tell me where the Archbishop told families to reject their children? This is a huge red herring which needs to be shot and put out of its misery. How many times have we been asked, “What would you do if your child were ‘gay,’ transgender, etc.?” to which we all reply “Duh! We’d love them, of course!” Love doesn’t mean rubber stamping everything that your child thinks or wants to do, right? Again, the suicide problem doesn’t come from Church teaching. It comes from liberals who teach us that we live in a throw-away society (also contrary to Church teaching).

What message does the archbishop’s trivialization of transgender people convey to the Catholic faithful? What message does his attitude toward LGBT people send to parents who might be struggling with an adolescent who just came out to them as LGBT? Does the archbishop really want to encourage parents of LGBT children to respond to their coming out in the same dismissive way that he presented during his comments?

First of all, the Archbishop hasn’t done what you have said. Maybe you shouldn’t rely on the National catholic Reporter for your “facts” or lack thereof? His attitude toward “LGBT” people is the same as the Church and Pope Francis – loving. Does someone from Catholic U really need a refresher course in the teachings of the Church? Also, in case nobody else noticed, Dr. Garascia gave one quote on which he premises his entire caricature of Archbishop Cordileone.  What was it?  A scientific fact.  Oooh!  How trivial – not! What Garascia has done is inserted a whole lot of conjecture and innuendo as fact. Quite frankly, it’s sad that The Advocate would think of posting such a sloppy op-ed.

One would hope that the archbishop would truly consult doctors, psychologists, and mental health counselors who have worked with transgender people to better understand this issue. Better yet, the archbishop would do well to actually listen to the experiences of transgender people who fight to be heard and be visible to the hierarchy. If he would only listen, he would understand that this is not about “gender politics” but about treating others with dignity and respect.

Again, does Garascia actually know that the Archbishop, the Holy Father and the Catholic Church haven’t done this already? Really, the pompousness is staggering albeit all too common. Maybe Garascia is just upset they didn’t consult him?  That sounds about right!

NcR – National catholic Reporter

Anyone else getting tired of the endless whining from NcR? (Note the small “c”. That’s how I’m going to abbreviate the National catholic Reporter from now on thanks to a reader’s suggestion. It’s only fitting.) They must have noticed that there hasn’t been much posted as of late, so they put this out to keep the story “fresh” in peoples’ minds. Here’s the same story (their version of “fresh”), only the dates have changed ( Prepare for an onslaught of rehashed articles from NcR in the next 21 days as the final deadline approaches for the teachers’ contracts to be signed.

Just a short recap from reality: Archbishop Cordileone hasn’t caved on Catholic identity as liberals would like him to do. The end.

Along with typical requests for higher wages, better retirement fund allowances, lower healthcare costs, and preservation of the current tenure system, the union continued to fight what has been its biggest battle yet: preventing new language in the employee contract that would deem all teachers ministers. It’s a semantic change, but one that would strip roughly 250 diocesan educators of their current legal rights as teachers and leave them vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal. After more than four hours of discussion, the negotiations ended at a standstill—as usual. “It was pretty fruitless, to be perfectly honest,” says Paul Hance, a social studies teacher at Junipero Serra High School in San Mateo and one of two union representatives appointed by the school. “This thing has been a nightmare.”

So, why, pray tell, are we trying repeatedly to get the Archbishop to cave on Catholicism in the Catholic schools? That will continue to be a fruitless battle. Can’t you just accept the fact that Archbishop Cordileone isn’t going to cave to your threats? He will continue to reclaim Catholic identity in the schools under his care, and he will protect the children of the school from anti-Catholic messaging as much as humanly possible. Bam! We’re done. You can sign the contracts or not sign them, the choice is yours. I’m sorry you haven’t run into a faithful Catholic Bishop willing to care for souls up until now, but here he is!

The Archdiocese of San Francisco oversees the operations of 74 elementary, middle, and high schools across Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. Many of these schools are free to hire, fire, and educate as they please. But the archdiocese exerts executive control over the region’s four diocesan high schools—Serra, Kentfield’s Marin Catholic High School, and Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory and Archbishop Riordan High School in San Francisco—and their nearly 3,700 students. At these schools, the whims of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone are most keenly felt.

Seriously – whims? Get a clue. I guess they’d consider Christ to have died on a cross on a whim. I’m so sorry that you have been so poorly educated that you wouldn’t know the Catholic Faith if Our Lord came down and explained it to you Himself, but it’s hardly a whim. It’s THE FAITH. It’s not the world according to you.

Pushback from students, parents, and educators regarding the staunchly conservative archbishop’s plans has been well documented by local and national media (even the San Francisco Board of Supervisors rejected Cordileone’s proposed morality clause via a nonbinding resolution). For the most part, the issue has been framed as a revolt against a reactionary clergyman by liberal Catholics who feel that Cordileone’s labeling of same-sex marriage, birth control, and in vitro fertilization as “gravely evil” contradicts their values as post–Vatican II believers. In reality, however, far more is at stake, and the conflict stretches well past questions of Catholic doctrine. Owing to a potent 2012 decision by the United States Supreme Court on ministerial exception, those nearly 250 local teachers are on the edge of a vast legal gray area—one that may swallow them whole before the new school year begins.

All those who believe that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors rejection of Archbishop Cordileone’s morality clause has any bearing on the Catholic Church’s teachings, please raise your hand? I am a “post-Vatican II” believer and the term “gravely evil” doesn’t contradict my values in the least! Why? Well, that would probably be because I actually BELIEVE in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Same-sex marriage, IVF, and artificial birth control ARE GRAVELY EVIL! Deal with it! Thank you so much, NcR, for not actually saying that the Archbishop has called anyone gravely evil. First dose of reality I’ve seen come out of this publication in a long, long time. Now, if they could only come all the way over and acknowledge that Archbishop Cordileone was quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that be nice? As I’ve pointed out before (, the use of “ministers” matters not.

The morning after that June 17 round of unsuccessful negotiations, Sacred Heart religious and social studies teacher Sal Curcio ambles into Java Beach Café near Ocean Beach toting a stack of legal documents, petitions, and rejected collective bargaining agreements. “I have three folders like this one,” he says, admitting that he had to buy an iPhone after “all this started” to help him keep track of the various components involved. “It’s horrendous,” he says with a pained look. “It’s as if we’re negotiating with a gun to our head.”

Three folders AND an iPhone just to keep track of the fact that the Catholic Church is Catholic? That mean ol’ Archbishop put a gun to his head and made him get an iPhone. Shucks, I suppose the Archbishop also put a gun to his head and made him work at a Catholic school? He probably made him go to Java Beach Café, too. Give me a break! The drama is unfounded. Sorry, the Archbishop is one of the nicest guys around. It might play well to the liberals who don’t know him, but the arch-villain persona given to him is wasted on anyone who has actually met him or heard his homilies or talks. He’s not inflicting his version of the Faith onto these “poor teachers”. He’s teaching THE Faith in the same manner as all the Popes I can remember. He’s being a father to them, and that means speaking the truth even if they don’t want to hear it. Rather than a comic book scenario, people might want to compare this situation to the good father with the rebellious teen. That’s the reality.

Curcio rattles off cases across the country in which teachers redefined as “ministers” have been dismissed without recourse: the Catholic school teacher in Fort Wayne, Indiana, who was fired after undergoing in vitro fertilization; the tenured religious studies professor at Lexington Theological Seminary who was fired for being Jewish; the high school gym teacher in Columbus, Ohio, who was fired after her mother’s obituary listed the teacher’s female partner as a survivor; and, most notably, the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision against Cheryl Perich, a teacher at a Lutheran grade school in Michigan who was fired for being narcoleptic—in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The decision was upheld unanimously by the court: “Having concluded that there is a ministerial exception grounded in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, we consider whether the exception applies in this case,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. “We hold that it does.”

Again, I’ve already dealt the Perich case before (, but people really need to ask this question: Why in the world do we have to know which teachers are using IVF, marrying their same-sex partners, using artificial birth control, etc.? Believe me, no faithful Catholic wants to know the intimate details of someone else’s sex life! Keep your private life private, please, and there’s no problem. Heck, the dear Sisters of Mercy, in the latest firing, told their lesbian teacher just that, and she agreed! Once it became public that she had “married” her same-sex partner, she was publicly contradicting the faith (AKA publicly undermining the Faith).

Support of marriage equality and LGBT rights, use of birth control, and undergoing in vitro fertilization can all become firing offenses.

Oh, my gosh! Right! If someone teaching at a Catholic school is publicly contradicting the Faith and, after counsel, continues in that action, they would then be thumbing their nose at the Faith. Undermining the Faith SHOULD be a firing offense in an organization whose goal is to teach people that sinning is bad and a danger to their soul. DUH!

In his attempt to make the diocesan high schools’ curricula more Christ-centered, Cordileone has enlisted Melanie Morey, the former provost of St. Patrick’s Seminary & University in Menlo Park, to head the newly created Office of Catholic Identity Assessment. In a PowerPoint presentation given to teachers in February, Morey stressed that Catholic teaching should now be present in every academic subject; she suggested integrating religion into mathematics, for example, by comparing the solving of linear equations to communicating with Jesus. While the concept was largely laughed off by teachers, its message was all too clear: Start proselytizing to students—or risk your job. Curcio acknowledges that a handful of teachers have already left for other schools and that some families are looking to send their kids elsewhere.

Proselytizing??? Wouldn’t that mean transmitting the Faith? Well, to the sane, I think it would. Does this sound familiar, Mr. Curio?!

803 §2. The instruction and education in a Catholic school must be grounded in the principles of Catholic doctrine; teachers are to be outstanding in correct doctrine and integrity of life.

A majority of the teachers nationwide who have been fired under ministerial exception were dismissed for marrying someone of the same sex, using in vitro fertilization, or having sex outside of marriage. Curcio, however, points out that employers needn’t give a rationale. “It could be an undisclosed reason,” he says. “What if I just don’t like you?” Across the country, ministerial employees have been fired for reporting possible sexual assault, for helping coworkers file harassment claims, and for having a disabling condition. While much of the local uproar has focused on whether or not people who work at Catholic schools must adhere to Catholic principles, Curcio says that the real argument is much more basic. “Does a religious employer have the right to be above the law? That’s the crux of the question here.”

Umm, hello! We’re talking about Catholic schools here.  How about you provide some examples of all those teachers who have been fired in Catholic schools for “I just don’t like you”? Which law states that Catholic school teachers can’t be fired for undermining the Catholic Faith?  The crux is this: Do Catholic schools have the right to be Catholic? It ain’t the Perich case. Mr. Curcio, you might want to actually read the opinions of the justices. Since I doubt you’ll go through the trouble, here’s what Alito and Kagan said:

When it comes to the expression and inculcation of religious doctrine, there can be no doubt that the messenger matters. Religious teachings cover the gamut from moral conduct to metaphysical truth, and both the content and credibility of a religion’s message depend vitally on the character and conduct of its teachers. A religion cannot depend on someone to be an effective advocate for its religious vision if that person’s conduct fails to live up to the religious precepts that he or she espouses. For this reason, a religious body’s right to self-governance must include the ability to select, and to be selective about those who will serve as the very “embodiment of its message” and “its voice to the faithful. Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F. 3d 294, 306 (CA3 2006).”

Did that hurt, Mr. Curcio? The Supreme Court reiterated similar things in the very case you cited on “ministers”.

It’s something that Leslie Griffin bangs her head into all too often. A law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Griffin is an expert on constitutional law and has unofficially instructed the San Francisco diocesan teachers union on ministerial exception (the union is formally represented by a local labor lawyer, Stewart Weinberg, who declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations). Griffin says that since the 2012 Supreme Court ruling on ministerial exception, teachers across the country have been placed in a precarious position. California law, she points out, requires private employers to respect the privacy rights of employees. “It shouldn’t be possible that in San Francisco, discrimination against gays and lesbians is legal under religious freedom. That’s not legal under California law,” she says.

The archdiocese, Griffin continues, has entered into a strange legal realm where the law that applies to everybody else doesn’t seem to matter. “Most Americans think that if you have a job and you get mistreated, you can go to court and sue,” notes Griffin. But because ministerial exception is an affirmative defense ratified by the Supreme Court, potential plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits are prevented from even attempting a legal rejoinder: “You lose your day in court.”

She actually seems to get that the Supreme Court is not on their side. Now if she could only get this through to the rest of them, all of us might move on. Religious Freedom means that the Church doesn’t have to put up with teachers in Catholic schools undermining the Faith. What a concept!

One day after the mid-June stalemate, Cordileone wrote letters to Representative Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho) and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in support of their proposed First Amendment Defense Act. The legislation, if passed, would prevent the federal government from penalizing religious institutions for making decisions based on opposition to same-sex marriage and sex before marriage.

Are we all chanting “Cardinal Cordileone! Cardinal Cordileone!” yet?! You should be! #cardinalcordileone

Crucial to this struggle is the fact that a contract doesn’t even need to include the word “minister” to effectively relabel teachers as such. The most recent version of the archdiocese’s proposed contract in fact excised the controversial word, but union lawyers insist that teachers would still be held to—and potentially fired due to—ministerial exception law. It all depends upon whether the archdiocese can claim that teaching at its schools constitutes ministerial work: an intriguing concept in light of Melanie Morey’s math lessons on “graphing lines and relating to Christ.”

It’s like they finally read my blog! Whether or not “minister” is in there means nothing. There’s no re-labeling going on. The Archdiocese of San Francisco doesn’t have to claim anything. The Supreme Court already has, and it was a rather big “Duh! Of course teachers can be considered ministers!”

Many current teachers predict that if the San Francisco archdiocese pulls this off, they will be subject to arbitrary dismissal. They question, however, whether the church will be able to replace them with local educators willing to be ministers. It may be a tall order: Several hundred teachers used to attend the yearly archdiocesan hiring fair. But, say teachers and parents, this spring only a few dozen showed up.

Again, that’s just silly. The Church and the Archbishop don’t arbitrarily do anything. Should he “pull it off,” I don’t see mass firings.  That certainly wasn’t the case in Oakland. However, should the teachers’ decide to air their sins en masse and cause grave scandal, I can pretty much guarantee the Archbishop will have faithful teachers lining up to teach for him, because they won’t fear persecution by their fellow teachers in San Francisco anymore. Right now, the liberal teachers don’t want to work for him and the faithful teachers are just waiting to see if one of their favorite bishops will be able to protect them. It would be a faithful Catholic teacher’s dream to teach for Archbishop Cordileone!

Despite the public outcry against Cordileone’s plan, few in the world of local Catholic education were surprised he took this route. Just last year a similar fight played out at the Diocese of Oakland, where Bishop Michael Barber altered the employee contract to require teachers to model Catholic moral teachings in their private lives. While a handful of teachers quit and public outrage was displayed on the local news channels, ultimately the diocese won.

Barber’s relationship with his parishioners wasn’t as frayed as Cordileone’s is, and he sat down with educators in attempts to come to a compromise. Cordileone has been present only twice during negotiations in San Francisco. But the most crucial difference, and one that distinguishes San Francisco’s ongoing dispute from similar cases across the country, is that the teachers in Oakland don’t have a union. Kathleen Purcell, who taught at Bishop O’Dowd High School in Oakland and was fired after crossing out the morality clause on her contract, says that the quashing of the nonunionized teachers’ concerns set the tone for San Francisco’s current fight: “Once Oakland happened, [the Archbishop of] San Francisco started to get ready. They had a lead time.” San Francisco’s teachers, in fact, feel that Cordileone is making the play he has long desired to make: These are the first contract negotiations to come after the 2012 Supreme Court ruling. “I think he’s planned this exactly the way he wanted it to go,” says one teacher, speaking anonymously owing to fears regarding job security. “He knows the timing on everything here.”

Please! San Francisco and Oakland are worlds apart. That’s really the difference. The people in the largely suburban Diocese of Oakland aren’t quite as haughty as to take out full-page ads against their bishop. They definitely have their fair share of liberals, but they’ve had twelve years and three consecutive faithful bishops who have done great things. San Francisco is just in shock and frantic.

What the school year will look like come the fall remains undetermined. During a nearly nine-hour July 1 negotiating session, tentative agreements were reached regarding tenure and healthcare. But barring an unforeseen détente on ministerial exception, teachers’ contracts will expire on July 31. The notion of a strike is hardly far-fetched, but teachers hope that overwhelming public support for labor laws and LGBT issues will provide leverage before it comes to that. “San Francisco is a pretty big union town; we’ve got tons of support,” says Joe Hession, Serra’s other union representative.

The Supreme Court has told you how it’s going to go, guys. The Catholic Church is a pretty big universal organization, if you haven’t noticed. The “union town” has nothing on our 2,000+ years of resisting people like you. If you think we won’t back Archbishop Cordileone all the way to the Supreme Court, you are a bit daft.

But for many teachers, the uphill battle has already become the biggest burden of their career, and it may be just beginning. “This isn’t an overstatement: The entire nation is watching this,” says Sal Curcio. “If the archbishop can break a union in San Francisco—or render it useless by pushing an agenda that takes away the rights of teachers and also hurts the students—then they can do this everywhere.”

It’s not about breaking the union. It’s about retaining Catholic identity and Religious Freedom. The Church certainly isn’t saying you can’t have a union AND Catholic identity and Religious Freedom. You can. You are quite right about one thing, though, Mr. Curcio: the entire nation is watching. The amazing, faithful, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone is leading the nation from San Francisco. He is leading us in traditional marriage, Religious Freedom, Catholic identity, and protecting our youth from those who would try to steal their souls. The Church in America is depending on him, and we need to constantly remember him in our prayers. I also have no problem praying that he will, one day, be Cardinal Cordileone right here in the area where so many are watching.

Go Home, USF. You’re Drunk!

Too strong a title?  Well, I wish they had some sort of excuse other than just being run-of-the-mill-dissenters.

I have tried no fewer than five times to write a piece on the University of San Francisco.  My problem?  Way, way too much material.  I just couldn’t focus on one area because too many others encroached.  I feared I would be breaking the blogosphere rules with a 20 page dissertation, so I have a whole lot of half-done pieces.  In short, USF is a complete Jesuit mess!  Their last shred of worth in the world of Catholicism went out the window when they booted the St. Ignatius Institute.

First of all, if you want to send you child to school with authentic Catholicism, please go to the Cardinal Newman Society’s website ( and find a school there.  I can tell you that, if California is where you or your child wants to go, you can find secular schools here with more Catholicism than the University of San Francisco.  I am totally and utterly serious about that.  I’ve seen Newman Societies/Clubs at the local state schools with far more authentic Catholicism than USF.  So, if you want a chance of your child coming out of college a faithful Catholic, bypass USF and go somewhere else.  Anywhere else.

So where is my ire coming from?  How about these from their official twitter page:
Now, this is just on the SCOTUS ruling and “Pride” parade.  If you keep going, you will become more ill along the way.

I’m reasonably sure most of you know exactly what the SF “Pride” parade looks like but, in case you don’t, here are the MILD pics.  (Don’t watch with your kids alert.) Remembering that these are the tame pictures, does this look like something in which a CATHOLIC school should participate?  Does it look in keeping with Catholic teaching?  For USF to keep saying it upholds Catholicism is a complete and utter joke.

Not to be outdone by their Twitter page, here are a couple of their official Facebook pages:

I would like to reiterate that these are the OFFICIAL pages for USF.  So now we have institutionalized dissent against Catholic teaching.  I’m sure some of the Jesuits there are a little sad that the admins for these pages didn’t learn a little more about mental reservations and ambiguity.  You know, the “say something without specifically saying it so no one can say we actually said it” way of the Jesuits.  Do they learn that in seminary?  (Sorry to the AWESOME Jesuits I know, but you know I’m speaking the truth about many of your brethren.)  So, not only have the USF hierarchy failed to teach authentic Catholicism, they’ve also failed to teach them their way of undermining authority.  Might as well just come clean and admit that you have no regard for Church teachings that don’t suit you, Fr. Godfey. The jig is up.

One last thing, I’ve really got to take exception with USF’s use of “Jesuit Catholicism”, as would most faithful Catholics.  (Well, that’s not really the last exception I take to them but, again, I’m trying to keep the word count down lest it rival a doctoral thesis.)  “Jesuit Catholicism” suggests actually following the teachings of their founder.  I have little doubt St. Ignatius would be expressing a tad bit of just anger right now.  These idiots can’t even follow the Jesuit Pope! They’re just railing against him the way they rail against the rest of Catholicism.

The Archbishop in Wonderland!

My new nemesis word just showed up in the ridiculous letter below: microaggression.  Do you all know what “microaggressions” are?  I live in California, so these are a must to learn.  If you are in the business world, you can actually get in trouble (sued, censured or fired) for saying/doing such things because we live in the Land of the Offended.  In reality, it’s an invented word to muzzle society.  Here are some examples of microaggressions from the University of California Office of the President (

(Highlighting and comments in parentheses all mine!)

“Where are you from or where were you born?” “You speak English very well.” “What are you? You’re so interesting looking!” A person asking an Asian American or Latino American to teach them words in their native language. Continuing to mispronounce the names of students after students have corrected the person time and time again. Not willing to listen closely and learn the pronunciation of a non-English based name.

“You are a credit to your race.” “Wow! How did you become so good in math?” To an Asian person, “You must be good in math, can you help me with this problem?” To a woman of color: “I would have never guessed that you were a scientist.”

“When I look at you, I don’t see color.” “There is only one race, the human race.” “America is a melting pot.” “I don’t believe in race.” Denying the experiences of students by questioning the credibility /validity of their stories.

A White man or woman clutches his/her purse or checks wallet as a Black or Latino person approaches. A store owner following a customer of color around the store. Someone crosses to the other side of the street to avoid a person of color. While walking through the halls of the Chemistry building, a professor approaches a post-doctoral student of color to ask if she/he is lost, making the assumption that the person is trying to break into one of the labs (OK, if you go to school in California, you know this is a joke.) 

“I’m not racist. I have several Black friends.” “As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority.” To a person of color: “Are you sure you were being followed in the store? I can’t believe it.”

“I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” (Heaven forbid!) “Of course he’ll get tenure, even though he hasn’t published much—he’s Black!” “Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement.” “Gender plays no part in who we hire.” (This is a bad thing why?) “America is the land of opportunity.” (Um, it is!) “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.” “Affirmative action is racist.”

To an Asian, Latino or Native American: “Why are you so quiet? We want to know what you think. Be more verbal.”  “Speak up more.”  (So we don’t want to know what they thinking?) Asking a Black person: “Why do you have to be so loud/animated? Just calm down.” “Why are you always angry?” anytime race is brought up in the classroom discussion. Dismissing an individual who brings up race/culture in work/school setting.

Faculty of color mistaken for a service worker. Not wanting to sit by someone because of his/her color. Female doctor mistaken for a nurse. Being ignored at a store counter as attention is given to the White customer. Saying “You people…” An advisor assigns a Black post-doctoral student to escort a visiting scientist of the same race even though there are other non-Black scientists in this person’s specific area of research. An advisor sends an email to another work colleague describing another individual as a “good Black scientist.” Raising your voice or speaking slowly when addressing a blind student. In class, an instructor tends to call on male students more frequently than female ones.

Use of the pronoun “he” to refer to all people. Being constantly reminded by a coworker that “we are only women.” Being forced to choose Male or Female when completing basic forms. (The audacity!  I really think zebra should be an option!) Two options for relationship status: married or single. (Alternative options would be?)  A heterosexual man who often hangs out with his female friends more than his male friends is labeled as gay.

When a female student asks a male professor for extra help on an engineering assignment, he asks “What do you need to work on this for anyway?” “You’re a girl, you don’t have to be good at math.” A person asks a woman her age and, upon hearing she is 31, looks quickly at her ring finger. An advisor asks a female student if she is planning on having children while in postdoctoral training. Shows surprise when a feminine woman turns out to be a lesbian. Labeling an assertive female committee chair/dean as a “b____,” while describing a male counterpart as a “forceful leader.”

Most of these are lame and I don’t know anyone except Elaine Benes’ ex-boyfriend from Seinfeld that would actually ask them.   A couple of these are just crass, but in short, we are apparently supposed to just keep our head down and not speak, unless you are one of the liberal elites talking about Catholicism. In that case, you can say anything you darn well please.  Please!  Get over your offended selves and stop accusing the Church of “microaggressions.”  We’re not going to shut up and sit down because you are liberal.

Now that I have that little explanation out of the way, here’s the latest attack on Archbishop Cordileone: ( 

A Plea to Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone: Do No Harm

Right off the bat!  The hypocrisy can be found in the title ! However, I’m just guessing these two docs have absolutely no problem with killing a child in the womb or passing out artificial birth control to the students they are trying so hard to protect.

We are two faculty members and medical/mental health providers in the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital, offering care to gender-nonconforming and transgender youth, and hoping religious institutions will support us in our work.

Nope, sorry.  We’re not going to support you twisting the minds of the youth.  Ever wonder why there are so many “transgender” youth here compared to someplace like, say, Nebraska?  They’re being created due to the message they’re getting. Congratulations, doctors.

Sadly, in our own back yard, our Catholic Archbishop is doing anything but. Speaking at a recent conference in Manhattan, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone cast aspersion on the increasing categories of gender being “invented,” drawing laughter from his audience at the expense of the growing number of GLBTQ people trying to live their lives free from prejudice, rejection, and violence.

There are only two categories of gender.  I would have thought they would have taught you that at medical school, doctors.  They are male and female . And, yes, the vast amount of letters being added to the alphabet soup is insane.  Half the time, it’s your little club that bickers about what gets into that soup too.

Let’s make this easy for you and any parents concerned about Catholic teaching in a Catholic school.  If you are concerned for your child’s safety and well being, DON’T SEND THEM THERE!!!  This whole thing is getting Orwellian and I think we’ve all had enough with the thought police!

Cordileone’s initial proposal for a teacher handbook is even more vitriolic, cast in language that could have devastating effects on our GLBTQ youth: only a marriage between a man and a woman in sanctified, “all extra-marital sexual relationships are gravely evil and…these include…homosexual relations”; homosexuals can reach perfection if they grapple with their “condition” before God “by the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace.” Ergo: GLBTQ students will be taught being who they are or going in search of a partner is an evil act, and a good dose of reparative therapy (a practice legally banned in California) will help them suppress unnatural tendencies and achieve spiritual perfection.

Would you give us the respect of being a tad more honest here???  This isn’t Archbishop Cordileone’s wording; it’s the Catholic Church’s wording.  You don’t like “gravely evil,” take it to the Pope to whom you’re appealing to for the Archbishop’s removal.  Also, I don’t remember the Archbishop ever suggesting reparative therapy.  Besides, as you point out, it was the initial proposal.  You and your ilk got so offended (cue the tiny violins playing now), it was removed and teaching expanded.  So, why again are you still whining about it?  Plus, you don’t even have it right.  Again, and you know this, people are not labeled “gravely evil” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, actions are. LGBTQ (let’s go full OCD and make it BGLQT!) teens should be taught self-mastery.  Heck, ALL teens should be taught self-mastery.  You guys really seem to want to create a Mad Max dystopian world where nobody can control themselves.  Why?  Oh yeah, as a way for YOU to control people.

If those weren’t enough microaggressions to deflate a youth’s sense of well-being and catapult them into depressed or suicidal states (a significant risk for GLBTQ youth), the handbook condemns contraception and the use of assisted reproductive technology, the very techniques GLBTQ individuals use for family-building. Lesson: unprotected sex that may lead to AIDS is a holier practice than sinful contraception; any GLBTQ person turning to assisted reproductive technology to become a loving parent will be engaging in immoral activities. Is this what we want to teach our children?

Why yes! This is exactly what I want my children taught.  That would be called the teachings of the Catholic Church.  And there’s that microagression word! Let me just clue you in to the fact, you genius mental health doctors, you are the ones who created a world of death, destruction and suicide by teaching them that there is no intrinsic value to life.  You want to know why the suicide rate is climbing?  It has NOTHING to do with the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control and everything to do with your sacred cows of abortion and contraception. You’ve completely brainwashed these kids into thinking that it’s fine to kill people and that children are a burden.  Why wouldn’t they think their life has no value, either?

Reports have it that student and community outrage in response to the original handbook proposal has led to a reconsideration of the language that will be used in the final teacher handbook. Regrettably, vitriolic words previously spoken cannot easily be taken back, especially if retracted only under duress, so now the damage has already been done.

Thanks for admitting that none of the Archbishop’s actions will be good enough for you.  Why didn’t you just say this from the start and save the proverbial ink?  BTW, it’s hardly an outrage to all of “the community.”  Amazingly, some actually want the teachings of the Catholic Church taught in the Catholic schools.

In a comment specifically targeted to transgender individuals, Cordileone, in his Manhattan speech, stated, “The clear biological fact is that a human being is born either male or female.” This simplistic statement flies in the face of scientific studies demonstrating that sometimes a person’s body and gender identity (inner sense of being male or female, or somewhere on a gender spectrum) don’t match. While Cordileone states that gender identities are being “invented,” compelling scientific evidence — hormonal, genetic, and neurologic — indicates strong biologic underpinnings to gender identity development. Core gender identity would appear to be biologically hard-wired just like sexual orientation.

Oh, my gosh!!!!  This is how far the insanity has gotten!  It is simple!  There are two genders and there’s NO science to contradict that.  It flies in the face of nothing! It is hard science.  There’s a reason that psychology isn’t considered a hard science.  It ever changes on the whims and notions of those who practice it. How many years have we heard there’s a “gay gene?”  Purely psychological fantasy! Thankfully, the hard science people have proven that to be a farce with their identical twin study of homosexuality.

The larger challenges faced by transgender individuals come not from biologic variation (there are safe and effective medical treatments to bring body and gender identity into alignment), but from social systems that do not accept or understand these individuals. Doubters should be aware of a recent, rigorously carried out study demonstrating that a gender-affirming model of care for transgender persons results in a quality of life and sense of “well-being” that were equivalent or superior to that seen in age-matched controls form the general population.

The larger challenges faced by transgender people come from you, dear doctors. You try to treat outward appearance.  The Catholic Church and Archbishop Cordileone treat the soul.  You bet we’re doubters.  I can show you studies proving the exact opposite.  Again, science has gone out the window.  We can’t help but note you don’t even bother giving a link or name to the study.  I’d imagine you don’t want anyone looking too closely at the “controls.”

Whether in the classroom, in our offices, our religious institutions, or at home, practices that support rather than condemn our GLBTQ youth are for the good of all of us.

Diane Ehrensaft, PhD Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital Mental Health Director, Child and Adolescent Gender Center

Stephen M. Rosenthal, MD Professor of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Medical Director, Child and Adolescent Gender Center”

Just one last lie on the way out the door, huh?  Why would anyone believe you when you insist on using the, oh, so scientific method of “If you say it enough, it will be true?”  Nobody has been condemned by Pope Francis, Archbishop Cordileone, or the Catholic Church.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is just yet another example of the insanity the Church in San Francisco faces. Let’s broaden that.  This is what the Church in all the liberal pockets of our country face.  Anyone feel like they’ve just read Alice in Wonderland?  Pray for us!