Court Allows San Fran City Resolution Condemning Catholicism as 'Insulting,' 'Hateful'

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | October 26, 2010 | By Kathleen Gilbert

[topher]

Tuesday October 26, 2010

---

Court Allows San Fran City Resolution Condemning Catholicism as 'Insulting,' 'Hateful'

By Kathleen Gilbert

SAN FRANCISCO, October 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shakily allowed to stand a resolution by the city government of San Francisco that lambasted the Vatican as "meddl[ing]" and "insult[ing]" for reaffirming its teaching against homosexual adoption, and which urged Church officials to disobey the Magisterium.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2006 had issued a statement clarifying that Catholic Church agencies, in line with the Church's moral teaching on sexuality, should not hand over children to homosexual couples seeking to adopt. The statement was prompted by Catholic Charities branches in Boston and San Francisco choosing to cooperate with homosexual couples seeking adoption.

As a result, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors later that year issued a nonbinding resolution that personally attacked Cardinal William Levada, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and former archbishop of San Francisco, and his directive as "discriminatory and defamatory."

The board urged San Francisco archbishop George Niederauer and the local Catholic Charities "to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada," whom they dubbed "a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city." The resolution also lashed out at the Vatican's teaching role in the Catholic faith as an instance of "meddling" by a foreign country.

"It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need," wrote the supervisors.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two San Francisco Catholic citizens, represented by Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit against the city, claiming that the resolution violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A federal judge in December 2006 dismissed the case, stating that the Vatican had "provoked this debate" by issuing the statement.

The decision was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit before it was decided that an 11-judge panel should hear the case.

On Friday, the Ninth Circuit court was split on the case both in terms of its merits and the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the case forward. Only six judges examined the merits of the case, and were split 3-3; however, the court ultimately rejected the suit 8-3.

In an opinion joined by Judges Barry Silverman, Sidney Thomas and Richard Clifton, it was decided that the Supervisors "have the right to speak out in their official capacities on matters of secular concern to their constituents, even if their statements might offend the religious feelings of some of their other constituents," according to the Courthouse News Service.

However, in the minority opinioin, Justices Andrew Kleinfeld, Sandra Ikuta and Jay Bybee said that, "For the government to resolve officially that 'Catholic doctrine is wrong,' is as plainly violative of the Establishment Clause as for the government to resolve that 'Catholic doctrine is right."

The Thomas More Law Center has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102609.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[topher]

This is the district of Nancy Pelosi. Since Nancy Pelosi claims to be a good Catholic, she must be 'insulting' and 'hateful'.

[topher]

ping

[beezdotcom]

Have they similarly condemned Islam?

Oh wait - silly me, this is political, not principle.

[WayneS]

What happened to the ‘separation of church and state’?

;-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Proud of my Church BTTT

[topher]

I guess they hypocritical...

[LibFreeUSA]

I thought the libs scream about the “Separation of Church and State”, so I say “stay the hell out of what the Church believes”.

[topher]

This is San Francisco. This is Nancy Pelosi's district.

Isn't she the head of the Catholic Church there [ /sarcam off ] ?????

[oneamericanvoice]

I hope all good people come out to condemn this travesty! If I was in San Fran I’d be there. Juan Williams loses his job for a personal opinion, but the Court allows this nastiness! World upside down! Shame on SF and the Court!

[topher]

Also proud BTTT...

Reminds me of how liberals trashed a Cathedral in Canada and pushed aside elderly nuns to plaster the Cathedral with used condoms and other vulgar items.

But then the liberals would claim this is freedom of expresson.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Only radical muslims are protected from insults.

[topher]

I have heard numerous stories of men going into a Gay bar with their girlfriend, and being sexually assaulted in the Gay bar...

Respect may not be in the vocabulary of the liberal...

[Hodar]

First, you must tolerate

Then you must never say or think anything critical of the homosexuals

Finally, you will be forced to celebrate the homosexuals as the hero’s they believe themselves to be.

Failure at any of these steps will result in condemnation for not being ‘tolerant’.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

Didn’t I once read and/or hear the phrase “Separation of Church and State?
Didn’t it even come up in a political debate in Maryland?
When will the ACLU gallop onto the scene to defend “Freedom of Religion?”
When will San Francisco pass a resolution condemning the extreme radical tenets of Islam? Hmmm.
(Don’t hold your breath)

[MHGinTN]

No, actually Nazi Pelicanosi believes herself to be the goddess, so the Catholic Church is subserviant to her lowness.

[topher]

I guess I have not been programmed properly...

[Frantzie]

San Francisco. Named after a Catholic saint.

[Tublecane]

“I thought the libs scream about the ‘Separation of Church and State’, so I say “stay the hell out of what the Church believes’”

Arguing such resolutions are a violation of the free exercise of religion (which, unlike “seperation of church and state,” actually has something to do with the constitution) because of the deterrent effect of official denouncements is at least as convincing as arguing official endorsements of religion violate the establishment clause.

[MrB]

They have definitely substituted bitter for sweet in this case, as they do in all cases.

They’ve turned the intent upside down,
where the intent was to keep the government out of religion,
that’s perfectly allowed now,
and has been substituted with keeping religion out of government.

[getarope]

So when will the city change its name from San Francisco? If they want to dissociate itself from religious references, it has to go all the way.