The Most Reverend George Niederauer, the Archbishop of San Francisco

Archbishop George Hugh Niederauer recently gave a radio interview during which he expressed his thoughts on homosexual adoption. He also discussed Nancy Pelosi, homosexual priests, the Iraq war, the sex abuse scandals within the Church, vocations and inviting disaffected Catholics back to the Church.

The entire interview is available here: Full text of Archbishop George Niederauer’s Feb. 4 remarks on KCBS Radio, San Francisco

Here are some quotes...

On Nancy Pelosi:

Ed Cavagnaro: Now, one of your own flock, a Catholic woman from San Francisco, is now one of the most powerful people in all the country. Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic from San Francisco, is the Speaker of the House. She is not only pro-choice, but she would be someone who would be working to try to keep abortion legal. In your view is she less of a Catholic because of that?

Archbishop George Niederauer: Well, I have met on one occasion, with Speaker Pelosi, before she was Speaker Pelosi. It was last year. And I -- we’ve -- exchanged viewpoints on a number of things. At that time, it was last spring, and it was principally about immigration, because that was very much the hot-button topic of the time. We haven’t had an opportunity to talk about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but I don’t believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her stand to be, if I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it. I think that when I said earlier dialog is very important, that means dialog with anybody, whether it’s the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or somebody in the pew on Sunday who doesn’t understand or accept what they hear from the pulpit.

Ed Cavagnaro: Of course, she has a big say in the direction of the country and the legislative agenda, certainly. Other than this issue, what other issues do you feel that she should concentrate on? What is important to you as an archbishop?

Archbishop George Niederauer: I think all the issues are important. I think the life issues are important, like euthanasia, like abortion, but of course there is another life issue where you would find the side switching very quickly, and that is the death, -- the death penalty -- capital punishment. I think we would find ourselves in agreement with a whole different group of people who would be -- have a very similar but opposed opinion with regard to, well let’s say abortion. I think health care for everyone, I think is an important issue. I think affordable housing is an important issue. I think immigration reform. I think there is an hypocrisy, whereby we say, we send forth this message, as a country – I think we are anyway -- “Don’t you dare cross our borders but if you do we have a great job for you.” Something has to be done about that. Something has to be done about splitting up families. So that people can -- can try to support themselves and their families. Those are all, I think, issues. And I think an issue that is compelling to all of us right now is the war in Iraq.

On homosexual adoption:

Ed Cavagnaro: Last year you faced the issue of gay adoption, when the Church announced that children should not be placed in same-sex households. But you worked out a solution that allowed Catholic Charities to still participate in placing children. Explain how that worked and do you see more issue being settled in this way?

Archbishop George Niederauer: Well, I don’t know about other issues being settled in that way, but I think what we were after was some participation in the work of finding families for children who needed adopting. And, after all, that’s what you focus on. You don’t – the most important person in the adoption is the child. Important as it is for couples to be able to adopt a child if they want to, it’s most important of all that the child have a home, Now the Church’s teaching is that the model for that is a father and a mother, so that’s the paradigm that we would insist upon. So, because we could no longer make that distinction, because of State law, what we found, and I’m really very happy with the decision made by the Catholic Charities CEO, on that, was to work with the program on the Internet for finding homes for children, posting their pictures and being able to guide people who would be interested in this particular child to an adoption agency which could handle the situation. Now there are those within the Church, and I understand and respect their opinion, who feel that’s, even that is too much of an involvement, but I believe we have examined what we’re doing and vetted it very carefully and what we’re really doing is putting potential adoptive parents in touch with adoption agencies that can help them. I notice that there is a, from the newspapers, that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor in Westminster in London is meeting some of the same questions currently.

On homosexual priests:

Ed Cavagnaro: I think you’ve said that sexual orientation had nothing to do with the clergy abuse cases, in your view, or at least to a large degree.

Archbishop George Niederauer: It has seemed to me not, yeah.

Ed Cavagnaro: And do gay men, in your view, are they eligible for the priesthood?

Archbishop George Niederauer: What the Vatican directive is that I am in agreement with is that a candidate for priesthood has to be able to be celibate, has to have no commitment to, or engagement with, a sexual orientation which is going to make it difficult for him to be able to live a priestly life. I think the expectation of our people is that they’re going to call the priest Father and they are going to expect him to be a model of priestly virtue and in a sense in the image of Christ – that’s our teaching about priesthood – and I think it is the expectation of our people, and it’s one that I as archbishop, and that our faculty at the seminary, has to implement.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Loyolalaw98]

Thomistic,

I'm laughing out loud as we must have been working on the same post simultaneously! I deleted my post, yours has a much fuller quotation of the interview. (Hat tip to the idea though to Gerald at The Cafeteria is Closed blog).

Whenever I read of modern clerics, I think back to the admonitions that were contained in the old rite for the consecration of a bishop.

When the mitre was placed on his head the officiant intoned "May your visage be terrifying to the enemies of the truth."

Similarly, when given his pastoral staff - the prayer chanted was"

"Receive the staff of the pastoral office, so that in the correction of vices you may be lovingly severe, giving judgment without wrath, softening the minds of your hearers whilst fostering virtues, not neglecting strictness of discipline through love of tranquillity."

It's apparent that more than just the words of an episcopal cosnecration have changed..

O tempora, O mores!

[Thomistic]

I agree with you 100%, Loyolalaw98.

Also, I've had the same experience of working on a post and then realizing you or Maximus or Ultramontane beat me to it. :)

One more thing...

Feel free to drop me an e-mail: thomistic@romancatholicblog.com

I've been thinking for some time that it'd probably be good for us to have a means of contacting one another directly.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Aaron]

I can't wait to hear the results of the Archbishop's investigation into Pelosi's thoughts on abortion. America waits on the edge of Her seat to find out where the Speaker stands on this issue! Godd luck, your Eminence! Hopefully you'll pry it out of her! Is Nancy Pelosi pro-life or pro-choice? Only a personal conversation will reveal the truth!

[Dude]

Aaron...good one. Yeh, boy, I'm not sure where Pelosi stands either.

Pathetic.

[Michael Q]

He's evil, nothing more, nothing less.

[dmedici]

There are enough readers here who can use their rosaries to change the thinking of the upper establishment of the Catholic Church. If just a handful of readers here say the rosary for the archbishop, imagine what will happen.

[Jeffersonranch]

God help us all

[Doug]

I don't have any thoughts on the Archbishop's thoughts of Pelosi's thoughts...because I haven't had a dialogue with the Archbishop about it...or myself...or Pelosi...or, oh, nevermind.

[dude]

Uh, I am constantly baffled by the 'just imagine what would happen if only 10% of the people said rosaries...'

I have a difficult time with this one. About 10% of Catholics do say rosaries. I don't think it matters one iota. We can pray for a conversion of heart and for him to get a spine, but X amount of rosaries is not going to matter. 1 or 175,000 rosaries, it will not matter.

This man has been called to be a bishop, and is willfully not acting as one. He is probably gay, somewhat of a new-ager and obviously weak. The probable reason he is weak on these issues, is that he probably sympathizes with his own psychological and liberal problems. I think God is fully aware of this bishop's state, knows it is wrong and knows we are upset about this. We always and everywhere pray for the state of the church, but a finite amount of rosaries does not open up limitless possibilities. God wills it, so do we, it should be done.

This man willfully rejects the pastoral responsibility that is to be accepted by a bishop. He knows this.

I will pray for his conversion and for his soul. If something happens, I'll be quite happy, but I would be willing to bet all of the hair on my head, nothing will change this man at this time.

Here is a difficult question for Catholics and Christians: To what extent does the scriptural phrase "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much" go?

I do not need primers on the necessity of prayer for others, or that as a Catholic I must believe this. Rather my question is, we pray all we want, and whatever the outcome, we always say 'God's will' was done, whether it went our way or not.

Where then is the real effectiveness of prayer, when one has such a hardened will for sin and weakness?

I would love to find a solid, intellectual reading on the difficulty of reconciling the will of the prayer with actual outcome.

Perhaps this is a mystery that will only be answered on the other side, but in the meantime I do have much difficulty with the ill-logic of the connundrum of willful prayer for others.

It seems that no matter what happens, we act as if our prayers were answered, and in the rarity that we admit they were not, it is simply chalked up as 'God's will.'

Well then why pray?

[David1]

Dude,
Why pray?

Excellent question. I think we can be confused that the purpose of prayer is to get God to do something we want done and He is either unaware, misinformed or too lazy to do it. I don’t think that is the purpose of prayer at all.

While there are many forms of prayer, I’ll describe two. In one form like the Rosary described above, it is a method to give the love which is in our hearts to our intention. It’s a kind of energy. Perhaps God can take this energy and offer a grace to our intention. But, like all actual graces, the recipient must participate with it for it to bear fruit. If we offer this type of prayer with the idea of expecting results, then it is not unconditional love.

Another form of prayer is to quiet ourselves and listen to God and His graces. He offers us graces to help us along on our pilgrimage. However, our busy brain and even busier egos can get in the way of hearing God’s whispers. Prayer is a way to silence head and ego and remove our deafness.

[Loyolalaw98]

Dude,

What a shame that your genuinely interesting post had to be ruined by your smarmy accusations about the Archbishop's sexual orientation.

"He is probably gay..."

Well there's no probable in the fact that you are rude, uncharitable and un-Christian.

Take on what the man says, by all means, judge him by his actions.

By resorting to this sort of ad hominem attack you also reveal weaknesses in your own logic, for who resorts to the weakest form of argument if he has a convincing argument on it's own merits?

You have become a prima facie example of the worst charateristic of the internet, the ability to impersonally smear. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to call the man a sodomite to his face? or to write him a letter signed with your own name saying so? Obviously not, that would require courage.

[James]

You know - the previous poster said that this Bishop is probably homosexual.

Given that huge numbers of priests are - and that a large percentage of bishops is (Heck - five of them were recently removed for buggering boys themselves), and given that the homosexual priests and bishops are the ones least likely to perceive that the sodomite worldview is a threat to the church, to society, to our children, and given that this bishop clearly does not see that threat - the odds are not bad at all that he is homosexual.

Face it - the Church is infiltrated with sodomites and men with sexual disorders.

It's gonna take decades to clear it out - if anyone gets around to actually doing that (which frankly, I doubt).

We just tell our sons this (out of love for them) - Never be alone with a priest.

We have to tell them that. If you'd seen what happened to a lot of boys around where we live, you'd tell your sons that in a second flat.

What a sickeing shame. Nauseating. Vomitous.

James

[James]

"Ed Cavagnaro: I think you’ve said that sexual orientation had nothing to do with the clergy abuse cases, in your view, or at least to a large degree.
Archbishop George Niederauer: It has seemed to me not, yeah."

---

Yeah - 80% of the molestation cases (or more) involve priests' buggering male teenagers.

It really, really sickens me that the Catholic leadership won't state what is obvious to everyone. Homosexual priests were at the root of the homomolestation scandal.

Could somebody just tell the truth? Yes - sodomy activists will scream. Let them.

James

[dude]

First David1: Thanks for the reply re: prayer. I agree with all said. However my difficulty is the folks doing the 'imagine what would be done if all we did was pray X amount of rosaries for said dissenter...'

I have always had a tough time wrapping my head around God's will, man's free will, and us bending both to our will. My challenge to all was on this level: Logic.

Second, LoyolaLaw98: On the Archbishops question as to Pelosi's position on abortion, he (A.B.) gave a total, weak-kneed dodge. On the question of should gays be in the priesthood, again a weak-kneed dodge. This one usually indicates something, in combination with the statistical probability, along with my experience (I should add very in depth, without having been gay myself, as I have had roommates, many friends and acquaintances who are gay) that my remark is probably accurate. I'd bet on it. Also, it was not ad hominem, however I can see from your perspective how it would appear to be so. My (admittedly) flippant remark about his probably being gay was more directed to his dodging of all questions in the interview. It is no small leap of logic that so many of our dissenting priesthood which has brought so much bad fruit to bear starts with the conflicted gay priest.

I'm not sure if you've read my posts previously, but I am a sinner as well. I have alcohol (currently arrested) and womanizing problems. However I admit these are problematic, and would not make me a good candidate for the priesthood. But, let me make this very, very clear. The homosexual priest has a much higher probability of being a liability in terms of molestation and supplanting the gospel of Jesus Christ with a truncated, new gospel. Hence my remark.

Yes I do admit it was flippant, but I am not sorry. I am sooooooo tired of this same jibberish from these types. These wimps in men's bodies and bishoprics and priest's pulpits. I have met no small amount of men who are away from the church due to this. I say that knowing what remarks that prompts, but these people who have walked from the faith don't have the faith and catechesis fostered strong enough to have anything or any example to cling to. And this is the fruit from these types of bishops.

I'll call this out anytime, anywhere with my name attached publicly. Those who know me, know this. One other thing, those who know me know I also pray for this to change.

While I'm not perfect and never will be, with God's grace, I have made progress.

Now onto your remarks: I am not rude, or uncharitable and unChristian. I wonder if you really have any idea how many times I have stood up for these priests and bishops to my secular and liberal friends, and so many fallen-away Catholics. So damned many times, and I have no problem doing so. But these types let the church down when they should be some of the main pillars.

If you types are too polite and cuddly to call a spade a spade, then somebody has to do it. I write letters and get things moving. I pray and hope, but at some point we need to tell the truth.

By the way, just exactly what was the weakness of my argument you were referring to? You never mentioned that, as you were so authoritatively correcting me and telling me how it is, which is your right.

You say "You have become a prima facie example of the worst charateristic of the internet, the ability to impersonally smear. Do you have the intestinal fortitude to call the man a sodomite to his face?

I say, Oh boy, how 'twas brillig and the slithy toves of you.' Actually, I'm cracking up because it kind of sounds like Ignatius J. Reilly, and you are after all of Loyola...

I did not know the article was posted with the intent of us all to have positive conclusions of said intereview. I also did not know that if we were to have negative impressions, that we were to completely whitewash what we perceive.

I think you may have overreacted just a tad bit. I usually read many of and respect your posts, but I think you may have a bit to think about in this one.

May God bless you, the archbishop and our church.

[James]

"I have met no small amount of men who are away from the church due to this."

---

Bravo, dude, bravo. Great post.

I also know many, many men, fathers, husbands, teen boys, who were so nauseated and so angered and so disturbed by the homomolestation scandal, and by the unbelieveable nonchalance of the bishops with regard to it that they will no longer set foot in a Catholic church. That is evil spreading itself into more evil. It is tragic. We lost about 10% of the families in our churches around here; and for the most part, those folks haven't come back. This issue comes up constantly in our Confirmation preparation sessions. It has greatly affected many where I live.

I myself still choke with rage when I think about the things I have had to explain to my sons and my daughter - and even more so when I consider what was done to teenage boys in our area (one of whom committed suicide after having been serially anally raped by a priest).

It IS time to call a spade a spade - and to dequeerize the priesthood (by which I mean, to actually see to it that that be done - not just to issue paper from Rome).

And yeah - I'd lay the same wager as you. This SanFran archbishop exudes many of the classic symptoms of queeredness. And I'm not afraid to say so either.

But more - I wanted to take a stab at your profound question: ""To what extent does the scriptural phrase "The prayer of a righteous man availeth much" go?""

Several thoughts: God listens to all prayers - but responds in love - according to what we truly need (which is often not what we want). Jesus tells us to have fortitude in our prayers (as in the parable of the woman and the judge). We must pray for things which are truly good and Godly. Miracles brought about by prayer are connected with men and women of great faith. And finally - even God does not override the free will of a man! God can, but chooses not to. Thus - God may respond to prayers by helping in different ways a willfully sinful man to see or understand - but if that man willfully remains in his sin or ununderstanding or refusal to understand - nothing can be done. Jesus, I'm sure - did not wish that Judas lose his soul; yet Judas himself insisted on it.

Best,

James

[Patrick]

I do not know anything about the bishop above, and I do wish to comment about him. However, regarding the larger issue of homosexuals in the priesthood, the Church needs to come to grips with the problem. It has gotten so out of control that it may not be possible to deal with by papal decrees and policy changes.

I believe a universal indult for the TLM could give impetus to a traditional Catholic subculture in the Church. This subculture could serve as an anecdote for many of the ills that plague the Church (like the one mentioned above). I believe it would attract true vocations and serve as an alternative for those of us that are fed up.
It would, in effect, be the true Church. That is why the so called "progressives" are afraid of it and fight against it.

[Patrick]

Oops...antidote not anecdote

[dude]

James, your reply - 'Thus - God may respond to prayers by helping in different ways a willfully sinful man to see or understand - but if that man willfully remains in his sin or ununderstanding or refusal to understand - nothing can be done. Jesus, I'm sure - did not wish that Judas lose his soul; yet Judas himself insisted on it.'
is the answer I was looking for...
Thanks.

I'm also glad to see my perspective is not seen universally as the uncharitable and unChristian.

In my area we had to deal with the great number of cases. But the most disturbing was the case of Father Ryan Erickson. Only the strong in faith should google this one. It pulled the rug of faith out from many, including my cousin. For him, that was it.

When bishops like this refuse to admit the connected dots, it depresses me to read about it. I am incapable of saying things like "Well, maybe we should just pray and sit before the blessed sacrament" - great and powerful things they are, unfortunately we are in a state (I honestly believe) that is worse than the Arian heresy.

James yes, I think this bishop shows all the signs of what I proposed. I think it's not that they don't have the spines to stand up for church teaching...it's much worse than that:
They don't believe and therefore will not teach or enforce church teaching.

This is not a witch hunt. One of my favorite posters here has stated his gay lifestyle came to a halt, and he is now celibate (yes S.S. that's you), just as I had to check my alcoholism and womanizing (and many other things).

Here is the crux of the difference: The gay dissenters will not check their sin or lifesyles because they are trying to supplant an entirely new gospel.

Against this I will fight brain, tooth and nail.

[James]

"Against this I will fight brain, tooth and nail."

---

You will, dude, I assure you, have me at your side.

James

[James]

"I believe a universal indult for the TLM could give impetus to a traditional Catholic subculture in the Church."

---

I am praying for such, Patrick, that serious Catholics will have a place to go where the faith is not constantly under assault from within. (It won't be perfect, but it would be better.) And it would draw people more deeply into the faith.

It's clear to me that the Pope wants to do this. I believe he's trying to figure out the best way to do so. He seems in every way to be (Thank God.) a very smart and devout man.

James

[James]

"I'm not sure if you've read my posts previously, but I am a sinner as well. I have alcohol (currently arrested) and womanizing problems. However I admit these are problematic, and would not make me a good candidate for the priesthood."

---

Hey dude - last - -

Many saints started out as horrific sinners. The man who has been deeply transformed through Christ often understands more deeply what is required of (and is desired for) us - AND - is often able to communicate that to others more effectively. Somethin' to think about...

James

P.S. Dude - on the alcohol - it's either get it under control or you have to give it up (for good). I've seen this a million times. There is no easy way.

[Loyolalaw98]

Dude,

In your critique of Niederauer's ideas - I say "Let Fly." He should be held accountable for what he does and what he says.

I still assert that your contention that he is gay is puerile.

You say; "It is no small leap of logic that so many of our dissenting priesthood which has brought so much bad fruit to bear starts with the conflicted gay priest."

What does this have to do with your unfounded accusation that the Archbishop is gay? Nothing. It is fluff, emotional dribble.

Why not just stick to your critique of what he says in the interview, there's the crux of the problem, and one where you score legit points.

[James]

"What does this have to do with your unfounded accusation that the Archbishop is gay? Nothing. It is fluff, emotional dribble."

---

When Bishop Bruskewitz got up at the Bishops' conference following the press outing of the vast homomolestation scandal in the American church (and in the Irish and Canadian and New Zealand and Austrian, etc. etc. churches) - and stated that we should look at the connection between the queerization of the priesthood and the homomolestation of 10,000 boys by priests, and not a single one of the American bishops could stand up with him and say that - you know there is a deep, deep, deep problem with the feminization and queerization of the priesthood in this country. Anyone who doesn't see that in the Archbishop of San Francisco's idiotic and 'hear no evil, see no evil' and let's- find-a-way-to-turn-over-children-to-be-raised-by-sodomites-while-saying-we're-opposed-to-such responses is blind.

James

[dude]

James, sorry, I never did give the details. I sobered and cleaned up 7 years ago. However yes, I do agree, if one has a problem, abstinence and AA are the best way.

LoyolaLaw, I stil do not see why you are so salty.

The reason I said that he is probably gay is simple, not peurile or emotional dribble.

Contrary to your assumption (as you never did ask why) I think the article has left us with some very good clues, paraphrased:

Ed Cavagnaro: "Is there any conflict with speaker Pelosi and her stance on abortion?"

A.B. Niederauer: "Uh, er, I really don't know if she is or not, er, um..."

EC: "What about the difficulty of gays adopting kids through Catholic Charities?"

A.B.N.: "Uh, what's really most important is that the kid has parents who love the kid. Now we've weighed this one very carefully..." (How difficult is this one, really?)

Now I'll just cut and paste:

Ed Cavagnaro: And do gay men, in your view, are they eligible for the priesthood?

Archbishop George Niederauer: What the Vatican directive is that I am in agreement with is that a candidate for priesthood has to be able to be celibate, has to have no commitment to, or engagement with, a sexual orientation which is going to make it difficult for him to be able to live a priestly life. I think the expectation of our people is that they’re going to call the priest Father and they are going to expect him to be a model of priestly virtue and in a sense in the image of Christ – that’s our teaching about priesthood – and I think it is the expectation of our people, and it’s one that I as archbishop, and that our faculty at the seminary, has to implement.

Boy, Loyola Law, what is so tough about this one. Do you really not see it here?

If the priest had gin blossoms and watery eyes, and slurring his speach during an interview, I'd say "he's probably a drunk" and you'd probably have less of a fit. However I suspect a little sensitivity, perhaps either on the P.C. side, or mayhaps on the 'we intellectual Catholics don't actually have to get dirty in the conversation' approach. I'm not sure where you are coming from.

I guess the last questions are;
Why did you post it (in your race with Thomistic)?
What were we supposed to conclude?

I cut right to the heart of it. Honestly, based on my eperience and judgement, I voiced that which I perceived.

Lastly, again, what was the weakness of my original argument? You still have not answered this.

Pax.

[A Simple Sinner]

"Archbishop George Niederauer: What the Vatican directive is that I am in agreement with is that a candidate for priesthood has to be able to be celibate, has to have no commitment to, or engagement with, a sexual orientation which is going to make it difficult for him to be able to live a priestly life. I think the expectation of our people is that they’re going to call the priest Father and they are going to expect him to be a model of priestly virtue and in a sense in the image of Christ – that’s our teaching about priesthood – and I think it is the expectation of our people, and it’s one that I as archbishop, and that our faculty at the seminary, has to implement."

I recall reading the Vatican directive barring men who have self-identified as homosexual or who have been willing partners in homosexual sex acts as being barred from the priesthood.

Perhaps Abp. Niederauer is not wanting to say something as "blunt" to incure and risk the rath of Militant SF gay activists by avoiding what could be turned into a 2 second sound bite... but I think that is a little charitible.

The Vatican directive is very clear - persons who have engaged willingly in homosexual behaviors - even those who would not now self-identify as "gay" are not to be ordained. Why is his response so muddled?

Probably for the same reason he needs to have lunch with Nancy to know "exactly where she stands on the abortion issues." Better to obfuscate than to come out and tow the party line. Being Catholic would not get one invited to as many cocktail parties.