Tuesday, June 19, 2007

A Chronicle of the Homosexual Agenda in the Archdiocese of San Francisco

Fr. John Malloy is an 85 years young Salesian of Don Bosco. He is currently the Pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco and has a blog called The Shepherd's Voice.

His recent post, Where are we going?, chronicles the various actions (and inactions) taken by the Archdiocese and which have resulted in the Archdiocese's dilemma regarding the homosexual agenda. Fr Malloy writes:

This post is an attempt to chronicle how and why the Archdiocese of San Francisco found itself unable to comment on the city of San Francisco's aggressive push to have children adopted by homosexual couples.

The controversy over the Catholic Charities/CYO facilitating of adoptions by same-sex couples is only one in an ongoing series of events. Simple sustained attention shows that there has been a relentless advancing of a "gay" agenda in the Archdiocese. Each "compromise" made by the Archdiocese, no matter how well-intentioned, was in fact a retreat. Then the position retreated to became the new ground from which further "compromises" were demanded. The main protagonists in this are Catholic Charities, the University of San Francisco/the Jesuits, and a few Catholic parishes.
For those who may not recall, in 1997, then Archbishop William Levada granted domestic partnership benefits to the homosexual employees of Catholic Charities - a move which shocked faithful Catholics who understood what was happening and where such actions would eventually lead.

This is a very good post and worth reading if one wishes to grasp the trend in SF over the last 10 years or so.

I was also informed that at least two members of the "steering committee" of the recent "Lay Convocation" were "Call to Action" coordinators...Previous posts on the SF "Lay Convocation" were here,
SF Archbishop Shows Support for Dissent, and here,
SF Archbishop Niederauer Notes “Confusion and misunderstanding”.



A Tip of the Hat to Gibbons in SF for the info and the link.

No comments: