|
Published: June 9, 2009
Stacked deck?
Will San Francisco archdiocese get fair hearing on appeal of huge tax bill over internal property transfers?
A hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, in an appeal by the Archdiocese of San Francisco of an attempt by the City and County of San Francisco to levy up to $15 million in property taxes against the archdiocese.
A three-member board made up of the city treasurer, the city controller and the head of the city’s real estate division will hear the archdiocese’s appeal. Two of the three appeals board members – Treasurer Jose Cisneros and Real Estate Division head Amy L. Brown – have been active supporters of same-sex marriage. Cisneros is a member of the board of directors of the homosexual-rights group Equality California, a major player in attempts to legalize same-sex marriage in California. Brown has provided instruction to city workers on how to perform same-sex marriages, and was a donor to the unsuccessful No on 8 campaign. During the campaign, supporters of same-sex marriage repeatedly called for the revocation of the Church’s tax-exempt status because of support by California’s bishops for the constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.
“With Cisneros and Brown as two of the three members of the review board, will the Church get a fair hearing?” asks Gibbons Cooney, writing under the heading “San Francisco Versus the Church” on the blog A Shepherd’s Voice. “I doubt it. Look for this to end up in court, where public attorneys -- paid in part by the tax dollars of Catholics -- will try to hamstring the Church.”
The controversy arose following the internal transfer within the archdiocese in 2008 of 232 pieces of property. San Francisco County Recorder Phil Ting determined that the transfers were the equivalent of “sales” and therefore subject to property taxes. The estimated tax levy proposed by Ting would be between $3 million and $15 million.
“San Francisco County Recorder, Phil Ting, has taken a step that is unprecedented in the history of the state of California,” archdiocesan spokesman Maurice Healy told California Catholic Daily in January, when news of the proposed tax levies surfaced. “He has determined that an internal reorganization of church property, without consideration, within the family of corporations of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, constitutes a ‘sale’ and is subject to a property transfer tax.”
In December 2007, Archbishop George Niederauer announced “certain corporate structure changes” in an article published in the archdiocesan weekly Catholic San Francisco. "The goal here in San Francisco has been to allow the day to day operations of our parishes and schools to continue in a cohesive, efficient manner while at the same time establishing simple ownership models that clearly distinguish the canonical assets of the parishes and schools from those of the Archdiocese in general," said the archbishop.
“The law is overwhelmingly in favor of the Archdiocese in holding that church property ‘transfers’ of this nature are exempt from transfer taxes,” said Healy in his January statement to California Catholic Daily. “The California legislature, courts, the State Board of Equalization and the Attorney General have repeatedly stated that religious corporations are merely permitted as a convenience to assist in the conduct of the temporalities of the church -- which is the real owner of church property. Counties throughout the state have recognized this fact in connection with similar corporate reorganizations in other dioceses.”
Ting told the San Francisco Chronicle in a January interview, "Because we knew the accusations (of unfair treatment) could be out there, we worked to look at every single document so we could totally and completely understand their argument. We looked at all the various exemptions that could have been applied, and we felt that none of them were applicable in this case. That meant it was our determination that this was a taxable event."
The “unfair treatment” allegation was raised in an email to the assessor’s office from archdiocesan attorney Jack Hammel, which said “the city has applied the law in an uneven fashion,” and noted that some non-Catholic charities “have transferred property to other charities and no transfer tax has been levied.”
Cooney, a longtime San Francisco pro-family advocate active in his parish, views the tax dispute from a wider perspective. “Since the mid 1990s, there has been a state of war between the government of the city of San Francisco and the Catholic Church,” he wrote. “The city and archdiocese had grown up together, in reasonable harmony, and this state of war was a new thing. What had changed? Simply this: by the mid 1990s, homosexual activists had taken power in the city. As the homosexual activists grow more powerful the war grows hotter. If you attempt to promote Church’s teaching on homosexuality in San Francisco you face an implacable enemy.”
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:11 AM By Dan
"Since the mid 1990s, there has been a state of war between the government of the city of San Francisco and the Catholic Church." Cooley, sadly I have to agree. This explains the strange and also the uneven application of these vindictive measures.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:12 AM By JLS
They want the Church to enable homosexuality, and now they're trying to get Her to pay for it. Inviting Her into their midst did not pan out for the homosexuals well enough for them, so now they figure it they can get money then they'll be having a sugar daddy.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:32 AM By Rick DeLano
The important thing is, that the fantasies of the so-called Spirit of Vatican Two are crashing down, failing to survive their collision with the reality of an implacable enemy of Christ and His Church.
The homosexuals have declared war on Christianity.
They will lose, faster and more devastatingly than they can possibly imagine.
The seeds of their defeat were already sown in California; now New York has slipped from their grasp and the signs from the Obama White House are that this President will not drink the gay marriage Kool Aid.
Perhaps Archbishop Neiderauer can now understand the supreme importance of ceasing to allow our priesthood and episcopacy to be subverted by a homosexual fifth column.
It is a matter of urgency that our shepherds find the courage to stand against this demand of the world that we Catholics accept the homosexual disorder as a positive good.
Some Bishops will go to jail, I suspect, before the homosexualist insanity is finally turned.
But this is exactly what the Church needs now: a witness on the part of our shepherds that our Faith will not kneel down before the spirit of the age.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:42 AM By The original Frank
It isn't easy to obey Jesus when he demands: "Love (agapao) your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Luk 6:27, Mat 5:43-44) Today's two CCD stories are closely related. In the "Anti-Cross agenda" story, we cling to our material attachment rather than to God, to a physical sign that the cross "reigns" supreme on a mountaintop rather than deep knowing in our hearts that God IS supreme on The Mountaintop. Our desperate counter-Jesus clinging --- our insistence on material "proof" of the unprovable but unavoidable fact of God --- precipitates "their" anger and "our" angst which emerges in the "Stacked deck" story. Can the Church get a fair hearing? If it doesn't, let us be grateful that God gives us a another chance to obey the command we've refused to obey so far: "Love (agapao) your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:34 AM By Ron
If the Diocese looses, I suggest selling Most Holy Redeemer Church. It should have been closed long ago.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:49 AM By JoeCee
Tax exempt organization must be held accountable to tax payers for privileges they receive as a result of their tax exemptions for this or that, and any violations of the same. It's about time the archdiocese is being held accountable for its (perceived) violations. If, as Cooney says, "The city and archdiocese had grown up together, in reasonable harmony," we can only imagine that the cozy relationships among city officials and diocesan clergy in those days were probably too close, and at tax payer's expense.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:48 AM By Thomas Edward Miles
Is the Church being treated unfairly, YES INDEED, but we must remember what the Archbishop said to gay folk after the election of prop 8; something like this if I recall... let's all get along, it's over and we are sorry if we hurt you... eat your own words Archbishop and see how you like BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY!
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:58 AM By Thomas Edward Miles
Sorry Ron, Most Holy Redeemer has one of the largest Sunday Collection plates in the Archdiocese of San Francisco! Maybe the Archdiocese can get a loan from THOSE people at Most Holy Redeemer Roman Catholic Church in the Castro area of the City of Saint Francis!
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:29 AM By Peter
One correction: "The homosexuals have declared war on Christianity." Not true. Christianity declared war on homosexuals and homosexuals have answered that call to war. They are fighting back against those who would oppress them.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:34 PM By JLS
The Archdiocese, as all of them, should, in my opinion, cut the cord between the homo lobby and the rest of the pagan world and free itself up from that slavery. Yes, St Paul was in chains in Rome for his last two years, but he had no way out; the Archdiocese only has to give up its tax exemption and it's then home free. Then it can sue the city for fraud and extortion. In either case there are bargains with the devil to avoid.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:35 PM By Rick DeLano
Thomas Edward Miles makes a very valid point.
It is quite true that some relatively affluent parishes countenance non-Catholic teachings and practices regarding homosexuality, and the collection plate argument is a plausible reason why (there tends to be more disposable income in infertile, two-paycheck "relationships", of course).
If any Bishop has allowed the "collection plate" argument to influence his decisions regarding the faithful teaching and governing of the Church, then confession and penance are obviously in order.
God will provide, but only if His Faith is not counterfeited.
Another huge benefit to a return to solid orthodoxy on homosexual questions, will be a steady increase in the number of homosexuals who respond to the preaching of repentance, and avail themselves of the sacramental and prayer life of the Catholic Church, so as to strive after the chastity to which we are all called, proper to our station and condition in life.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 4:49 PM By Dan
"One correction: "The homosexuals have declared war on Christianity." Not true. Christianity declared war on homosexuals and homosexuals have answered that call to war. They are fighting back against those who would oppress them." Peter, all the Church has ever done, and can ever do, is to teach the consistent and inspired teaching of its founder, Jesus Christ. Now if that is oppression, so be it. But the intent of that teaching is to bring you to heaven and to give you the peace that surpasses all understanding. This gift of peace and salvation is not a declaration of war, except in your own mind.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 4:50 PM By JoeCee
It's very interesting reading many of the responses above, how (real) issues like discussing the pros and cons of serious tax allegations that could potentially cost the archdiocese dearly are lost in favor of soap box issues about gay people. What a shameful lack of focus and priorities. What a mess.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:53 PM By Mark from PA
"A steady increase in the number of homosexuals who respond to the preaching of repentance." What about repentance on the part of those who spread a message of hate against gay people? (See comment of 12:32 AM.) What about repentance by those that drive gay people out of the Church? From the tone of some of the attacks on gay people here I don't think there is going to be a positive response on the part of many gay people.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:53 PM By Rick DeLano
But possibly a positive response on the part of the Catholic people, eh Mark? I guess we all have to decide where our true identity is to be found.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:04 AM By JLS
In a tight economy when the State is at a loss for funds, and the cities are not too fat themselves, the money flow can be controlled by either the state or the Church. Who do you better trust to spend the 15million that SF is demanding from the Archbishop? It would purchase a lot of condoms, latex gloves, and syringes to disseminate to the fine upstanding citizens of San Francisco. Without that, and with it instead in the clutches of the Archbishop, those same models of citizenry would have less blocking their eyes and ears when the Church tries to reach them, using those very funds exploring ways to engage homosexuals -- but most compassionately.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:08 AM By JLS
One correction, please: Homosexuals declared war on God, Who instituted the Church to teach them how to live their lives. There is one God and the Church is His prophet; blessings be upon Her.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:22 AM By Mark from PA
I think the most important thing is for people to strive to live lives of Christian goodness. If a person gives example by the way they treat others and the way they live their lives this is what a Christian should be about to me. I wonder how many of the men here that go on about how gay people need to live chaste lives, live lives of chaste purity themselves. Given the facts of biology, it is surely a small number indeed. To me, treating people with respect is a Christian virtue.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:40 AM By Ron
Sorry Thomas Edward Miles, the MHR may be financially sound but it is morally bankrupt. Unrepentant homosexuals receiving Holy Communion is the abomination of desolation.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:04 AM By Ron
Mark from PA, try reading Romans 1, homosexuality is a serious sin.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:05 AM By Fr. J
No one, NO ONE, is more intolerant and vicious then a "gay rights" activist. Eventually they will imprison those who disagree with them, or worse.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:11 AM By Rick DeLano
There is no homosexual Catholic on earth, who would find the slightest difficulty in accepting the truth that he or she is called to chastity.
There are many homosexuals infiltrating the Catholic Church with the agenda of subverting her from within, and imposing perverted and false teachings which would mislead the victims of the homosexual disorder, possibly even convincing them that their disorder was now, or at some point might be, accepted as a virtue by the Catholic Church.
Since no such reversal is possible, charity requires that all homosexuals be given the clear teaching of the Catholic Church: the disordered homosexual condition inclines its victims toward homosexual actions which can never, under any circumstances, be approved.
The sacraments and prayer life of the Catholic Church can assist these persons in virtuous struggle against the disorder.
As for the militant homosexual enemies of Christ in San Francisco, may God grant them repentance since they have declared war on His Church, and they cannot begin to imagine the horrors which await the unrepentant who war against Christ. There is a day appointed.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 11:23 AM By Evan
Fr. J, "gay rights activism" comes in many forms, including working to see that gay people are "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." That would include not making overbroad, intolerant and vicious remarks about a diverse group of people known as "gay rights activists".
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:05 PM By Mark from PA
"Homosexuals infiltrating the Catholic Church" "false teachings which would misled victims of the homosexual disorder" "convincing them that their disorder was now ... accepted" "the disordered homosexual condition inclines its victims" "struggle against the disorder" "militant homosexual enemies of Christ" - all this from the post of 10:11 AM - so much for respect, compassion and sensitivity. Not much charity in that post.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 3:22 PM By JLS
PA, you are not the defining authority for respect, compassion or sensitivity or charity.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:55 PM By Ron
Mark from PA, charity is telling the truth
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:27 PM By Elton
That charity is telling the truth doesn't mean posters are telling the truth.
|
Posted Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:51 PM By JLS
Elton, how do you know if someone is telling the truth?
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:38 AM By Mark from PA
I feel lucky that as a teen I was never exposed to hateful ideas and views. I never heard a priest or nun say anything against homosexuality or gay people. We were taught that we were brothers and sisters in Christ. I mentioned some of the comments against gay people to a monsignor that I know and he said that it was just trash talk.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:55 AM By The original Frank
"Charity" is how the King James Bible often translates "agape." Agape often demands telling the truth, but telling some "truth" I picked up from narrow-minded "news" sources, whether the "Huffington Post" or "Americans for Truth," isn't equivalent to agape. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:9). I can never fully grasp God's truth nor God's love because I am not God. Moreover, broad condemnation of people and places I don't know ("I suggest selling Most Holy Redeemer Church," "it is morally bankrupt," "abomination of desolation") is neither truthful nor charitable in any sense of these words.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:19 AM By Mark from PA
It amazes me that people can say dehumanizing things about a group of people that they disdain and call it charity. Are not the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer Church also our brothers and sisters in Christ?
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:24 AM By Rick DeLano
Does the Monsignor say that this is "just trash talk", Mark? If so, I suggest you get yourself to another priest quickly, one who upholds the Catholic Church's teaching:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:09 AM By JLS
"Agape" is spelled just the same as the word, "agape". Jesus hung on the Cross agape, that is completely opened up to the world. He died that way so that all of us would be able to enter into his open arms, aka the "bosom of Abraham", aka the peace of God, aka the Church, aka Heaven.
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:55 PM By JLS
PA, that's not what the Pope says. He says homosexual disorder precludes a candidate from the seminary and from the priesthood. So you're saying your monsignor is saying the Pope is trash talking?
|
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:11 PM By Ron
Mark and Frank, sodomy is not a virtue. It is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. That’s even in your King James Bible.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:33 AM By Mark from PA
JLS, in the culture that the Pope was raised, homsexuals were seen as disordered. Homosexuals along with Jews and others were considered "untermenschen." Along with Jews, many were put in concentration camps and some were killed. Some homosexual Catholic priests were killed. I think that if the Pope had been raised in a society where homosexuals, Jews, etc. were seen as equal in human dignity and worth to other people then possibly he would have a different opinion about homosexual people.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:43 AM By Mark from PA
Rick, I have read what you posted many times. I realize that according to this homosexual people are considered depraved. However, I was never taught this and I don't believe it. I was taught that we were brothers and sisters in Christ. However, reading that makes me understand why some Catholics consider gay people to be "trash" because some Church documents pretty much label them as this. (But in softer terms at times.) Ron, I never said that sodomy was a virtue.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 9:16 AM By JLS
PA, so there we have it, your Catholicism in full daylight: The popes speak for the cultures they were raised in. Wow, and to think it took you twelve years of Catholic education to lock and load this bunk.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 10:34 AM By Abeca Christian
homosexuals are disordered due to their unhealthy attachment to same sexual attraction. It is their sexual appetite that is not natural in the way God intended it! This has nothing to do with Jews, slavery or any other human race discrimination. All good willed faith based people understand that!
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 11:03 AM By Rick DeLano
Thanks for the response, Mark. Please try to understand, that when you post "I don't believe it", when "it" refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you are proving my original point completely. If a homosexual comes into the Catholic Church not to submit to Christ, but instead to attempt to undermine His Teaching, then that is precisely what an infiltrator and a subverter of the Faith does, just as the hundreds of homosexual infiltrators into the priesthood indulged their sexual perversions upon the innocent and defenseless, because they also "do not believe".
I do believe, and I will never submit to deceivers and liars, please God.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 11:03 AM By RR
Mark from PA: Just because you weren't taught something doesn't make it not true. I went to a Catholic school for eight years in the 70's and I never learned everything about the Church in those years. It's impossible. To this day I'm still learning Church teachings. I've learned more in my 30's and 40's about the faith because my heart and mind want to know the truths of the faith. Just because you don't believe a Church teaching, haven't ever heard of it, or weren't taught it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. Also, Church documents do not label homosexuals as "trash".
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 1:19 PM By The original Frank
Ron (and many others): Please quit tilting a gay windmills and leave the vengeance to God. Neither Mark nor I wrote anything remotely like "sodomy is a virtue" --- We wrote about our own experiences living a Catholic life in today's world, and it would be much more interesting to hear something about *your* experience that isn't about Other People's Sins.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 3:45 PM By Mark from PA
You never learned anything about the Church in 8 years of Catholic school, RR? You surely must not have paid much attention. I learned about the Creed, the 10 Commandments, the Sacraments. We had Bible history several years in grade school. My 8th Grade religion class was especially excellent. We learned some of Church history and also the New Testament. We had Mass every first Friday and during Lent in grade school and every Friday in high school. A couple of my Religion classes in high school were good, a couple were not. But I think I learned a lot. I teach 8th Grade religion at my parish and it saddens me because my students don't know as much as I knew at their age. And yes, I am stil learning too.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:00 PM By JLS
PA, are you confessing, by your very own words ("I learned about the Creed, the 10 Commandments, the Sacraments.") that you did not learn the Creed, Commandments or Sacraments, but only "about" them? This is indeed revealing, PA, and it explains why you balk when pressed to come up with your actual Catholicism, and not just that you are because you say you are.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:03 PM By JLS
PA, and the most glaring goofiness you consistently post is how all your experience in Catholic settings has instilled the most profound Catholicism in you ... Martin Luther had more Catholicism experience in him by far, yet he somehow didn't live it and then lost it, or perhaps never had it to begin with other than the Sacraments which had been conferred upon him.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:04 PM By JLS
Great example, PA, as to what I am describing: You can pour water all day long over wooden duck, but it is not going to quack.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:07 PM By Mark from PA
In regard to the Monsignor, Rick. This fine man not long ago celebrated 40 years in the priesthood. Over 800 people joined him at Mass to commemorate the anniversary of his ordination. Over 30 other priests joined him on the altar at Mass. This wonderful man worked 16 hours a day serving others. Many times he would say Mass 3 or 4 times on Sunday. Often he didn't even had a day off and when he did he often spent the day with his family. I can understand why priests can't marry because this man gave so much he wouldn't have had time for a wife and kids. This priest also taught me Religion in 11th Grade. I remember him discussing Humanae Vitae with us. I learned then what abortion was and why it was so horrendous. So we discussed these issues at my school.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 4:20 PM By Samuel
The inclinations of all mankind is disordered. It's called concupiscence, a disordered inclination toward evil. For some people, that disordered inclination involves persons of the same sex. For others, that disordered inclination involves persons of the opposite sex. Those who would claim that homosexual persons are more disordered or more depraved than heterosexual persons are not abiding by Church teaching. Rather, they're engaging in disordered and depraved thinking/behavior.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 5:06 PM By Rick DeLano
I hope at some point you will learn, Mark, that what God commands, is True, and God commands that you listen to Holy Church just as you would to Jesus Christ Himself: Mt 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 5:30 PM By Mark from PA
RR, sorry I misread, you said "I never learned everything about that Church" so I hope that you learned a lot. Sorry for my error. Did you have good religious education? Church documents label homosexuals as disordered and depraved. These are insulting terms in my opinion. I feel sad for young people who would hear these words and think that they referred to them.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 7:22 PM By RR
Mark from PA: You were the one not paying attention to what my post stated. I said I didn't learn "EVERTHING", not anything.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 8:39 PM By Mark from PA
Yes, you are correct in 7:22 PM, RR. Mea culpa.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 9:36 PM By JLS
Not totally, Samuel. Many inclinations of man are very good, such as the yearning for God, and respect for the natural law. None perhaps is perfect in these good inclinations, but none is totally depraved either. The homosexual inclination is depraved but the soul with this inclination is not totally depraved. Ask yourself how Jesus could restore a totally depraved soul or planet? But He can restore souls and other creatures which are not totally depraved but have some very good inclinations. Babies and little children are especially expressive of very good inclinations. As we grow older we begin to commit sins, and this leaves the scars and uglies up our appearance. But still not to worry, for Jesus took all the sin, and the ugly and terrible appearances on Himself so that we could be repaired. Remember that He was a carpenter by trade, and much of carpentry is repair work ... He lets us know things in such and many other ways.
|
Posted Friday, June 12, 2009 10:25 PM By Gladys
"EVERTHING"? The Church doesn't teach that.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:39 AM By Annika
Let's get back to the question of the SF county recorder determining a sales tax is due on church properties that were never sold, that is no money exchanged hands. The diocese simply reconveyed the titles of properties into a new corporate structure. Why? To simply better isolate these properties as assets that could be seized in a civil action. The motivation is to avoid plantiffs getting church assets. The major cause for this restructuring is the sex abuse lawsuits. In other words, a parish like Most Holy Redemer is better protected from liquidation. The motivation for the SF county recorder is hazy here. It's a stretch to say its "gay activism" motivated. More likely the cause is get cash strapped California counties more money. Church hatred could also be a motivator. While we see in Conn gay activists going after church management and structures, there it is policy making that is vindictive and relentlessly attacking the Catholic Church in particular. Viscious stuff without doubt. The gay agenda doesn't stand to gain a whole lot legally from the county recorders decision. In fact the policy would hurt gays whose non-profits benefit from property bequests and property portfolios. Their boards would be hamstrung by the decision as would all non-profits. I am no expert on real property law in Cal but this is going to be one to watch. Lets see what the Cal courts do with this.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 5:04 AM By RR
Mark from PA: Apology accepted. Yes, I did have a good religious education, but my deep faith and knowledge comes from my faithful parents. My mother's knowledge of Church history and just history would blow anyone away. It's incredible. I'm number 10 of 11 children in my family and we all have great faith. I do want to make a comment about the statement you made that, "Church documents label homosexuals as disordered and depraved." The Church does not label homosexuals as disordered or depraved. They call the homosexual ACTS disordered and depraved. The Church does not insult people. The Church is the truth. I feel sad for all homosexuals, young and old, that fall for the homosexual lie, lifestyle, and agenda.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 10:30 AM By JLS
There ought to be a class action suit against these governments who attack the Church, because the Church is composed of millions of people, who thus form a "class", which the governments seek to subjugate. It would be a class action suit against government tyranny.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:42 AM By Anne T.
JLS, I am still laughing over your analogy of pouring water over wooden ducks. I "just got" to remember that one. It is hilarious.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:48 AM By Abeca Christian
RR the Church does not insult people and that is true but people who are not willing to turn away from their sins will always feel insulted. The truth insults them because they can't have their way and they rebel even more. Pride and disobedience is the right description for that.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:03 PM By Pam Whitmore
Samuel, you are totally correct. The Church teaches that man is inclined toward evil, and that includes heterosexual people. Heterosexual people have sexual inclinations that are evil, whether it be lust, or inclination to adultery, fornication, pornography, even improper sexual relations with one's spouse. And so too, focusing excessively on homosexual people to the exclusion of heterosexual people is immoral. Heterosexual people have many evil sexually-related inclinations. They need as much help and prayers as anyone else.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:11 PM By Rick DeLano
What both Pam and Samuel seem to overlook is that the heterosexual orientation is not disordered, but is instead correctly ordered. It is normative, healthy, and in accordance with God's Plan, as any one can see immediately by noticing how the male and female biological forms are complementary. Homosexuality, however, is disordered, for all the reasons Scripture and Tradition (many examples of which have been posted here) enumerate. Those who have a hard time with this may go to great lengths to attempt to confuse the issue, but it is really quite simple.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 1:40 PM By JLS
Not so, Pam Whitmore; man is not inclined towards evil, but towards God. Otherwise nobody would follow God; if your theology were correct, then only those who were forced would find themselves following God. Your theology cannot account either for martyrs who willingly give up their comfort and/or lives for the sake of Jesus Christ. The world is not naturally evil, Pam, nor is man naturally homosexual or disordered. God did not put disorder in man or the rest of creation at the Fall, but the sin committed did it. Man was not totally condemned by that sin, but was set apart because of it from the purity of God. Only the purity of God, in Jesus Christ, can purify us. It is theoretically possible for man to reenter the purity of God on his own, but a. man is not on his own, and b. there is no record of it. God surely would have told us if someone were to have entered Heaven on their own power and authority, and He has not told us; therefore, it is not likely to have happened. And now with Jesus leading the way and opening the door to Heaven, there is no need for man to attempt it himself, once sufficiently informed of the Savior.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:30 PM By Pam Whitmore
Rick DeLano, "heterosexual orientation" and "homosexual orientation" are both made up terms. What they mean is for anyone to define. The Church has no official teaching on them. Broadly speaking, "heterosexual orientation" could be defined as inclusive of any inclination of a heterosexual nature, including inclinations to engage in disordered heterosexual acts. As such, "heterosexual orientation" would be disordered to the extent it includes such disordered inclinations. Only if the "heterosexual orientation" were narrowly defined to include only inclinations of a chaste heterosexual nature would "heterosexual orientation" not be disordered. If we do likewise with "homosexual orientation" and narrowly define it as including only inclinations of a chaste homosexual nature (where "homosexual" means "of or relating to the same sex," and not just sex acts with persons of the same sex), then even "homosexual orientation" is not disordered. Of course, we can also define these terms in a neutral sense and add the modifiers "ordered" and "disordered" to identify in which sense we mean. For example, we can speak of an "ordered heterosexual orientation" and of a "disordered heterosexual orientation", and of an "ordered homosexual orientation" and of a "disordered homosexual orientation". Having read quite a number of your posts, I suspect it's likely you have a preference or insistence for one set of definitions versus another, and we could define a term for that as well. But in the end, none of these words accurately defines me or you as a person. They all fall short. I don't limit myself as "heterosexual" or "homosexual", or any other such term, because as man has concocted these terms, they are but limited concepts that fall short of the truth of who I am.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:26 PM By Pam Whitmore
JLS, my theology is the teaching of the Church. When you say "man is not inclined towards evil", you exhibit the very ignorance the Church speaks of in CCC#407: "Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social and morals." That man is inclined toward evil does not mean man does not desire the good. They are not mutually exclusive. Again, in CCC#1707, "He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error." As your posts well demonstrate.
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 8:46 PM By Dan
JLS, why do you claim it's "possible" for a man to enter heaven on his own power? The Second Vatican Council firmly decreed, "No one is freed from sin by himself and by his own power, no one is raised above himself, no one is completely rid of his sickness or his solitude or his servitude. On the contrary, all stand in need of Christ, their model, their mentor, their liberator, their Savior, their source of life."
|
Posted Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:38 PM By Rick DeLano
Pam, it's really much simpler than you would like to make it. But it is up to each individual to decide whether God's commandments are to be obeyed, or whether sophisticates such as yourself are a better guide.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:06 PM By JLS
Pam W: Now that you provide the CCC version of what you said, it makes sense. The Church teaches that man is basically good, but tends to give in to temptations. The way you are looking at it is the reverse, that man is bent on evil and has to be forced towards the good.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:16 PM By JLS
Dan, thankyou for making Church doctrine clear. Notice that what I said included the claim that no man has ever done it? Sometimes ideas are more complex than one didactic proposition: It is possible, yet no one has ever succeeded ... these two concepts are part of the idea. When we address people, we have to sometimes address people who hold incorrect philosophies, such as "everything is possible". So, using the logic I find in St Paul's address to the Corinthians about their idol to the unknown god, where the Saint explains to them that Jesus is that God whom they seek. He takes their possibility and shows them the only truth that it can hold. Possibility is a concept used sometimes by people who have no knowledge of a limit ... and I was addressing this in the construction of my rhetoric. There are many people who do not accept straight forward one line facts, and need to exhaust all sorts of possible interpretations and connections before they arrive at what one is trying to convey. Knocking that gate down would open up truth to countless minds.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:39 PM By Abeca Christian
Samuel what a bunch of baloney you write.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:44 PM By JLS
Dan, thanks again, you've given me the motivation to figure out why I failed to convey what I intended. Here is how I might have said it better: Instead of calling it a possibility, I should have said that the belief that it is possible ...; for it is a belief and not an absolute possibility. It is as you've pointed out from CCC, absolutely not possible for man alone to achieve Heaven. Now there is more to this question, however, which would be found in further study; however, the complexity does not lay in the truth but in those whom the truth seeks to inform. Words work but ultimately it is the Word that all words depend upon; all our language depends upon the Word made flesh and crucified and risen, all loving and merciful. We, when in union with the Word, are part of the Word and that perhaps is when we are successful. But even when we are in union with God, are we totally one with Him? Not likely; therefore, we have to always improve the situation, which is of course each of our own lives and those of our neighbors and even our enemies. After all, what else is there to do?
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:45 PM By Pam Whitmore
Rick DeLano, what sophistication do you see? To the simple, all is simple.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:51 PM By Pam Whitmore
JLS, nowhere have I said or suggested that man "has to be forced towards the good." As to your claim that "man is bent on evil," I don't know what you mean by that. The Church teaches that man is inclined to evil.
|
Posted Sunday, June 14, 2009 4:17 PM By Dan
JLS, you keep saying "it is possible" for a man to enter heaven by his own power, but the Vatican decree doesn't merely say no man has ever done it to date as if tomorrow someone might pop into heaven and proclaim “I didn't need Christ and his power, for I did it all by myself, by my own power." Rather, the decree says, "On the contrary, all stand in need of Christ, their model, their mentor, their liberator, their Savior, their source of life." What "own power" then does man have apart from Christ that would make it "possible" for him to enter heaven by his own power? Jesus said, "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth," and "without me you can do nothing." You admit it yourself, "man is not on his own." So why do you claim it's possible for man to enter heaven by his own power? Do you also claim it's possible that St. Paul was wrong when he said it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me"? You seem to be the person you describe in your post, "who do not accept straight forward one line facts, and need to exhaust all sorts of possible interpretations and connections before they arrive at what one is trying to convey."
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 9:36 AM By JLS
Dan, you've misread my reply.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 2:34 PM By Dan
JLS, actually, you misread my reply. My June 14, 2009 4:17 PM reply was to your June 14, 2009 1:16 PM post. Your June 14, 2009 2:44 PM post, which explains the problem you had with your June 14, 2009 1:16 PM and June 13, 2009 1:40 PM posts, was not displayed until after I had submitted my June 14, 2009 4:17 PM reply.
|
Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 10:37 PM By JLS
Interesting, Dan.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:24 AM By JLS
Dan, it hinges on how the word "possible" is being used, and part of how it is being used pertains to who is being addressed ... When one writes, one has an audience in mind. I tried to explain how I was using the word to a particular mindset. Some people do not think with a mind to absolute things, and we call that relative thinking. Such people consider everything to be possible. You can approach them two ways: One way is to tell them that something is not possible; if that doesn't work to get them to reflect, then the other way can be deployed. They can be told that something which is believed not possible by those who understand about absolute limits is possible, and then proceed to show them what that possibility requires. In this case it requires Jesus Christ. Dan, you notice I often use the word "rhetoric"? Rhetoric is a way of persuassion, as differentiated from a way of stating absolute truth, such as theology. One can use rhetoric to approach theology ... that is all I am doing ... seeking to persuade others to look at things from new perspectives ... in fact as I reflect on this, it may even be that I'm using a bit of artifice of less nobility than rhetoric and should call it poetic instead. It is my perhaps faulty understanding that there is a hierarchy with logic at the top, then rhetoric, then poetry ... or maybe I've mixed this up, as I tend to forget labels even though I remember how to do what they label. So, in the formal absolute sense I agree with you that it is not at all possible for a man without the aid of Heaven to gain Heaven; but a man who chooses to accept faith, then with that aid the road is open to him. Perhaps some would say that faith is part of what man is, in which case they would say that he could achieve Heaven on his own; however, it is clear from Scripture that Jesus provides faith to man and that it is not part of man's nature. It boils down to the difficult question of the who man is and who God is.
|
Posted Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:23 PM By Viola
JLS, when you tire of trying to get into heaven by your own power, i.e. trying to "boil down the difficult question of the who man is and who God is," Jesus has an invitation: "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|