Posted on 10/27/2010 12:10:42 PM PDT by topher
Tuesday October 26, 2010Court 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. |
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.
This is one of those bad news, Good News situations. It is through the crucible of secular assault which Christian faith is most severely tested and reaffirmed.
From adversity springs saints. There's nothing like the hot, stinking breath of the Adversary on one's neck to focus attention on prayers for the strength and faith to combat the eternal enemy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7O9OqBd2us
What would happen if some town had a resolution saying the cult of death is hateful, intolerant, violent and insulting? The president would be on TV condemning it and the FBI would be bugging everyone who voted for it.
Double standard anyone?
It's only in the Constitution when we say it is, otherwise it's not.
I hope everyone understands that the homos see this as a “zero-sum game”.
They cannot gain their “rights” unless Christians lose their rights.
And, since they really can’t define what their “rights” are*,
they just concentrate on reducing the rights of Christians.
*The real objective for them is to get rid of the guilt that they feel over their perverse behavior. That isn’t going to go away no matter if they killed everyone in the world that criticized them.
Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic Gay Hater. San Fran Gay-land should teach her a lesson by naming a sewer treatment plant after her.
Nancy’s Nasty or Pelosi’s Potty might work.
Catholics vote overwhelmingly liberal Democrat.
What do you want me to say?
Apparently the intellectual nincompoops in S.F. believe the “separation of church and state” only works one way.
There’s historical precedent, not only for attacking a religious dogma as wrong, but for criminalizing it. The several states and the Federal govt did so in the matter of the Church of LDS and the practice of polygamy.
“Is this a federal court upholding a law regarding an establishment or religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof?”
Lets hope the same court can be made to respect our local religious freedom when its not in the service of the atheist left. But somehow I think they will justify this on the 14th amendment.
It’s becoming increasingly hard to overlook the enormous damage Lincoln and the radical republican did to our once free and VOLUNTARY Federal Republic. The leftist of 1860 reach beyond the grave to strangle true individual rights and republicanism still.
The lucky kiddies can learn about watersports, fisting, rimming, teabagging, gonorrhea, syphilis, restroom sex, parade sex - just think what new experiences they'll miss. Not to mention domestic violence.
Yeah, San Fagcisco's great traditions are really something for children.
I think the intention was to keep a state religion out of government. Not to prevent in any way religious believers in government, or to prevent people from speaking of their faith. But to keep one religious group from making laws in their favor that punish other religious groups.
Jefferson wrote a lot on this.
The Pope should declare an interdict on San Francisco.
Since San Francisco is named after a Roman Catholic saint, the church should sue the city for trademark infringement over its use of the name.
That video is beautiful! Thank you so much for directing me to it! It was just what I needed tonight, too.
And your post is awesome too - spot on. I forgot to say that in my enthusiasm for the video.
No they don't.
What do you want me to say?
Admit that you simply parrot what you hear/read in the leftstream media.
Yes, they do.
Yes, it is strange. Which was my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.