If you want to receive a free weekly newsletter from an excellent Catholic online bookstore, then click on the link to sign up: Aquinas and More Newsletter
Ian Rutherford, the owner [and l996 graduate of the University of Dallas] will keep you up to date via his bookstore newsletteer re the Saints feasts,liturgical calendar, new liturgy news, quotes, sacramentals, books, etc. Ian's bookstore is so theologically correct that you will never go wrong nor astray buying any of his books. He is a theologian self made and has knowledge of all things Catholic. Some of you old timers may remember Ian is also the creator and webmaster of the excellent theological website, The Catholic Liturgical Library.
You will not find a finer liturgical online site than Ian's Catholic Liturgy. He has been adding fine theological info to his Catholic Liturgy website since the l990's, when there was no other liturgical info available online. Ian was very instrumental in bringing the Latin Mass to the Colorado Springs diocese. He is a true Catholic warrior.
Support the growing Rutherford family by supporting their apostolate "Aquinas and More Catholic Goods." This family is doing everything they can to educate all of us dummies of the truths of our Catholic faith. Help them as they help so many others. Use their online bookstore for your gifts and buy their books to add to your own home Catholic library.
Aquinas and More Catholic Goods is centrally located in Colorado Springs, CO. We carry thousands of products ranging from books and videos to chalices and church furnishings.
The store was started by Ian Rutherford and is owned and run by his family and friends:
Ethan (Eddie) his brother-in-law's brother, who runs the shipping department; Zach who does receiving; Deb, who does order fulfillment; Aline, who takes care of customer service; Fran, his mother, who helps with sales; James, his brother, who manages the office; Paula, his wife, who provides moral support and sanity checks; Lucy (7), Margaret (5), Andrew (4), Anne (3), Susan (1 1/2 years) and Peter (newborn), his children, who always ask what daddy does at work.
Our name comes from two famous Catholic saints, Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More. The ox head in our logo is a symbol of St. Thomas Aquinas who was called "The Dumb Ox" because he was a very quiet student, and rather large.
Note: To prevent the server from slowing down, the video is now linked instead of imbedded. You have very likely not seen much of this footage, some of which is graphic in nature, before (though it does include some familiar footage).
This video is a documentary sent to Rome giving a full photographic montage of the level of depravity to which the Archdiocese of San Francisco has fallen within the last 30 years and especially during the governance of Archbishop George Niederauer. This video was produced for the Roman Authorities to see with their own eyes what is happening within San Francisco because of the lack of Roman Catholic Leadership.
An ancient Roman Catholic tradition has returned to Huntington Beach, making it one of the few places in the county parishioners can attend Mass in Latin.
St. Mary’s by the Sea Church, 321 10th St., had a long tradition of holding the Tridentine Mass, as the old form is popularly known now. Late pastor Rev. Daniel Johnson championed the Mass to his flock, and was one of only two pastors given permission by the Diocese of Orange to perform it till he retired in 2004.
But Pope Benedict XVI loosened restrictions on the Mass last year, allowing it as an “extraordinary” version of the normal Mass if parishioners demand it from their pastor.
Longtime members of the church have been praying since Johnson’s death for a way to attend the Mass he loved so dearly, said Bette Barilla, who has attended St. Mary’s by the Sea since 1972.
“It was beautiful then, and the beauty is slowly returning,” she said. “When I was in high school, they’d sing in Latin. It is a tradition of the Roman Catholic church.”
Rev. Martin Tran, the church’s current pastor, declined comment for this story. But in a July bulletin to parishioners, he called it “the greatest opportunity for all of us to be united and to move forward together in love, respect, humility, harmony and collaboration, letting go of all divisions and discord.”
Latin Mass was replaced by services in modern languages in the 1960s after the Second Vatican Council, which radically revamped church practices. The modern Mass’ other changes generally involve more active participation by the congregation and more prayers being recited for those in attendance to hear.
The 1962 version of the Mass now allowed by the Catholic Church contains core elements dating back to the sixth century, but it also bears plenty of revisions from the 1950s, said Rev. Arthur Holquin, pastor of Mission San Juan Capistrano. In addition to having a degree in liturgical studies, Holquin presides over what was for decades the only other church in the county allowed to use the old Latin Mass, mostly because of the mission’s historical roots.
One of the Tridentine Mass’ most notable features as usually practiced is its private quality; rather than the call-and-response with the congregation of the modern service, it has them read along silently as the priest and altar server sing or speak the words. That’s not required by the text, Holquin said, but traditionalists prefer it that way.
“Most people’s understanding of the missal of 62 is not a dialogue Mass,” he said. “What they want is a more personal or quasi-private engagement in the liturgical celebration.”
Some traditionalist Catholics have alleged the new Mass had flaws — some even broke away from the church over it and other Vatican II reforms — but the majority of worshipers moved on and worship in the post-’60s style. Those who prefer the Mass, however, are known for the passion — some say vehemence — of their support.
Since the pope eased restrictions on the old style of Mass, a few churches have looked into providing it, Holquin said. But there hasn’t been a rush, he said.
“When I talk to the other priests, my colleagues here, there is not this huge groundswell of folks begging for the missal of ’62,” he said. But he called the change in policy a sign of the pope’s respect for history and a gesture at reconciliation for those who found the transition difficult.
The Latin Tridentine Mass has been held at noon each Sunday since the beginning of December, according to the parish office.
Husband and wife George and Carolyn Kosearas, who have baptized six children at the church, said they were ecstatic to hear it was back. Like virtually everyone interviewed, they’ve come back each week.
“You have no idea the love we have for this Mass,” Carolyn Kosearas said. “It makes you feel the root of this church and its traditions. Anyone that comes and really experiences it can feel that.”
Poor Father Tran. I suppose he was wise not to comment. It's dangerous to appear overly enthusiastic about the Tridentine Mass. Bishop Tod Brown is always watching.
The fact that the United States bishops produced a document confusing enough to suggest that Catholics in the United States can vote for pro-abortion candidates and occasioning a CNN report where bishops are said to be giving "leeway" on this issue is nothing short of scandalous, but I'll get to that later.
What do you think it means?
As you know, I have written a book [on faith and politics], and in it I write that it means a reason we could confidently explain to the Lord Jesus and the victims of abortion when we meet them at the end of our lives, and we will meet them. I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment. That’s the only criterion. It can’t be that we favor a particular party, or that we’re hostile to the war, or so on.
Some might sneer at this at being insufficiently nuanced for the complexities of political decision-making…but…
Teachers - especially teachers of religion - know all about minimalism, because that’s the Way of the Student. As much as your students may rail against minimalism and legalism, it’s where most of them (and us) live. So, after a hour-long, sensitive discussion of say, sexual morality, I can guarantee you that at the end, someone - usually a boy leaning his chair against the back wall - is going to raise his hand and say, “So…you’re saying that if my girlfriend and I go to second base….we’re both going to Hell?”
And he thinks he’s gotcha.
The same kind of reductiveness infects supposedly adult conversations about the choices we make as disciples of Jesus. Much of it seems to me to emerge as a consequence of the dynamic between the minutiae-obsessed legalism of the past and then the rather extreme reaction (especially as interpreted by popularizers of what Haring said) of the “fundamental option”
Or, as I like to say, “We are all good Catholics now.”
This could easily veer into a discussion of all sorts of other things like justification and forgiveness and scrupulosity and so on, but I’ll try to keep it from going that way. It’s just this simple, in my mind:
We are accountable for all of our choices, and all of our choices involve saying “yes” to something and “no” to something else.
When we choose to spend money on a movie, on a dinner out, on a new house, on a trip, we are saying “yes” to that and “no” to other ways that we could spend that money. We are, face it, saying “yes” to ourselves and “no” to others who have less than we have.
(Now the voting thing is a little different because it involves, usually, saying “yes” to some things you really should be saying “no” to, no matter how “ideal” your candidate is. But the point is still - it’s okay to acknowledge that this is, at some level, a sell-out for which we are responsible, because we cast our own votes. So, “Can I vote for X” and still be a Good Catholic?” is really the same question that my student asked above. It’s the wrong question, and one shaped in order to excuse and justify. We all do it.)
I wasn't thrilled with Archbishop Chaput's solution, not because I think it's erroneous, but rather, because I think it's confusing and it doesn't help Catholics who generally vote for pro-abortion candidates understand why the reasons the justifications most of them use for voting for pro-abortion candidates would not be acceptable to Jesus or victims of abortion.
I was troubled by what Amy Welborn wrote because it seemed to suggest that those who say Catholics sin by voting for pro-abortion candidates are oversimplifying things and reasoning out a complex moral issue in a way that is immature (so much so that it can be likened to the moral reasoning used by high school students).
However, Amy let me know (vie e-mail) that I misunderstood her. She explained that this was what she meant:
What I was saying was that it does matter and that I agree with Archbishop Chaput. The examples I was giving were examples of how people who want to weasel their way out of the significance of a vote for a particular candidate do so. I was saying that those who say that we don't sin by voting for a particular Catholic are like my student, seeking to look at things simplistically in order to justify their own behavior.
She also explained:
I am against voting for pro-abortion candidates of any party, and have been clear about that for years.
And I do despise the GOP. They use the pro-life community for a few votes (and more importantly) boots on the ground to do canvassing and so on, and in reality simply despise them and wish they would go away.
One more thing. I think what confused you (and perhaps is confusing) is this:
So, "Can I vote for X" and still be a Good Catholic?" is really the same question that my student asked above. It's the wrong question, and one shaped in order to excuse and justify. We all do it.)
That was directed at those who want to vote for pro-abortion candidates, the kind of apologists you see on liberal Catholic websites all over the place, who want to twist and turn things so that whoever they vote for, whether it be Hilary or GIulani, they kind find a line in a USCCB doc or something that makes it all okay.
I am opposed to all pro-abortion candidates, would never vote for one, never have and think that those who do are complicit in abortion.
What else can I say?
I think Chaput was correct, and the reductionists I was speaking of are the liberals - who want to excuse voting for a pro-abort and who would sneer at Chaput for daring to say that the vote matters.
I can understand why you were confused. In reading it, I can see how the accusation of reductionism might seem to apply to Chaput. But it wasn't. It was intended to be addressed at those who would oppose him and accuse him of reductionism. So I suppose it's partly my fault. But the truth is, the voting thing wasn't at the top of my mind. I was using it for a broader reflection on what yes and no mean, none of which ended up having anything to do with voting. I had a nagging thought in the back of my mind as I wrote it that I should come back to the voting, but I couldn't figure out how to work it in.
As I said, it is garbled, so I understand. But I really don't know what to tell you to do about it, because you accuse me of saying it's okay to vote for pro-abort candidates, when I don't think it is okay, and I have said so a million times.
Before I say anything else, I want to say that I'm not trying to attack Amy Welborn. I respect her in many ways (which may mean nothing to her, given my comments here and my general positions on political issues and even issues dealing with Catholic morality). In any event, I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on her (though if I were, I am confident she would be more than capable of defending herself).
I have to admit something that was coloring/informing my perspective on Amy's comments:
This thread is already taking a direction that is, frankly, pissing me off. There is absolutely no need to come here and prance about pro-abort GOP-ers to demonstrate your bona fides. Long-time readers know that we despise the GOP around here, pretty much. This is not a Dem v. GOP issue. This is a Nancy Pelosi on January 3 at Mass at Trinity College in the Archdiocese of Washington issue.
But, as usual, the conversation just repeats itself.
When commenters objected to Amy's claim that "we despise the GOP around here", she made this clarification:
Sorry, all. The "we" despising the GOP referred to me alone.
I wish I had a better understanding of where Amy was coming from with respect to her position on voting for pro-abortion candidates in general (Republican or Democrat), and supporting the Democrats in particular, who have what amounts to support for "abortion on demand" as part of their party platform. I should have e-mailed her to ask her for clarification, and I'm grateful for her clarification now and her patience with me in private correspondence.
My sense when reading her post on Archbishop Chaput's comments was that she seemed to be non-committal on the morality of voting for pro-abortion politicians. However, I was wrong, and that was due to a lack of familiarity with the many times she has explained her opposition to voting for pro-abortion candidates regardless of their political party.
It is a grave evil and objectively serious matter (which combined with sufficient reflection and full consent would constitute a mortal sin) to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if the vote is cast specifically because of their support for legal, elective abortion.
St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that there are times when one human act will have good and bad effects.
Under these circumstances, it is permissible to perform an action that will produce unintended evil effects if you meet these four conditions:
1. The action itself is morally neutral or morally good.
2. The bad effect is not the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3. The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only.
4. The good effect is at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.
With respect to the issue of voting for pro-abortion candidates...
I will admit that the principle of double effect would permit a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for reasons unrelated to their abortion stance.
The only example where the principle of double effect would permit a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate that I can think of would be in order to save as many or more human lives as those lost through legal, elective abortion; furthermore, these lives would need to be in immediate danger or there would need to be at least a serious risk that these lives would be lost if the pro-life candidate were elected instead of the pro-abortion candidate.
I will explain why I believe it's better to vote for pro-life Republicans than pro-abortion Democrats after the jump...
Bishop Tod Brown is “very respectful of the law, but he follows his own conscience… and he’s going to do what he believes is right and not what is popular or which may get him off a hot spot,” explained Diocese of Orange litigation counsel Peter M. Callahan in the November Orange County Catholic, the diocesan newspaper.
Callahan was referring to Brown’s decision to send former diocesan chancellor Msgr. John Urell for treatment in Canada at a time when, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers, Urell could have given important testimony in a sexual abuse case against the diocese.
Last July, Urell was deposed in a civil case involving allegations of sexual abuse by a former Mater Dei High School assistant coach. Disturbed by questions about his handling of sex-abuse complaints as chancellor, Urell walked out of his unfinished deposition, crying. Urell then checked into the Southdown Institute near Toronto, Canada.
As chancellor, Urell took part in processing sexual abuse claims against clergy -- a task to which he responded “with compassion, sensitivity, and appropriate action,” said Callahan. Urell, however, “had no legitimate involvement” in the Mater Dei case at all. In fact, said Callahan, as chancellor, Urell “had very little involvement in claims of wrongdoing involving lay personnel.”
When Urell became “distraught” during his deposition, “it was clear both to all of the lawyers involved and the retired judge who was sitting as a referee that he really had little practical knowledge about the facts in that case and was emotionally unable to continue,” explained Callahan in the newspaper article.
Everyone, including plaintiff’s lawyers, agreed that the July deposition need not continue, said Callahan. They would rely instead on what Urell had said thus far and on four days of deposition had given in an earlier lawsuit, he told the diocesan paper.
Urell’s doctor informed Bishop Brown that the monsignor needed immediate evaluation of his emotional condition, said Callahan. Brown sent Urell to Southdown, which is “one of the foremost facilities in all of North America that specializes in evaluating and treating clergy -- and, most importantly, it had an immediate opening,” Callahan told Orange County Catholic. “It was only when the plaintiff’s lawyer learned that Monsignor Urell had gone to Canada for treatment that the priest suddenly became ‘a critical witness.’”
Callahan denied claims of the plaintiff’s lawyer that Brown sent Urell to Canada to prevent him from testifying. The contempt of court charge subsequently leveled against Brown, said Callahan, is “’quasi criminal,’ meaning that the punishment, should the judge choose to impose one, could include five days in jail or up to a $1,000 fine, or some other consequence.”
As for the lawsuit, and three others involving non-clergy that have been settled for $6.885 million, school and diocesan officials followed all appropriate procedures in reporting them, according to Callahan. Brown decided to settle the cases in consideration of “the personal emotional impact on parties and the witnesses as well as the financial cost of protracted litigation.” He also looked to “the significant amount of erroneous and adverse press coverage that we had received, and the disruption the trial would have caused the high school,” Callahan told the newspaper.
Be sure to check out Gustavo Arellano's informative reportage on the Sex Abuse Scandals in the Diocese of Orange and the way they've been managed by Bishop Tod Brown here: Ex Cathedra Archives [Note: Sometimes Gustavo's reporting includes "colorful" language, but he does frequently report facts before other news sources, and although he's clearly critical of Bishop Tod Brown, his reporting is fair in that he's accurate.]
The story of the “Sisters” mocking Communion at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church has been picked up by major media, including Bill O’Reilly at Fox News.
“...But it really is not the archbishop’s fault--he is an elderly man who was taken by surprise,” O’Reilly says in today’s Talking Points. “The fault here lies with the leadership of San Francisco. Mayor Newsom has consistently avoided criticizing behavior that is harmful. He hides under his desk and attacks messengers like me.”
“Incredibly, the San Francisco media has blacked out the story, refused to report it; with the exception of KNEW Radio.”
Though he didn’t mention his name, O’Reilly must have meant Michael Savage, as Savage Nation had the story first, posting it from its source, the often enterprising, Toronto-based http://www.LifeSite.net.
LifeSite.com was writing about George Hugh Niederauer back in 2005 when he was waiting to be installed as the new Archbishop, as successor to Archbishop William Levada, formerly of the now-bankrupt Portland diocese. Levada’s appointment by Pope Benedict XVI as head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--making Levada among the three most powerful prelates in the Church--came as a shock to many Catholics aware of problems stemming from Los Angeles.
It was on December 22, 2005 when Niederauer soon to be installed as the new Archbishop of San Francisco, told a local news outlet that he is opposed to the Vatican’s prohibition of homosexuals in seminaries.
“Some who are seriously mistaken have named sexual orientation as the cause of the recent scandal regarding the sexual abuse of minors by priests,” Niederauer said in an interview with the Intermountain Catholic News.
“From 1992 to 1994, Niederauer resided in West Hollywood’s St. Victor’s parish which is identified in the homosexual press as “sizably gay”. “Gay men never felt ill at ease dealing with him,” said Monsignor George Parnassus, a St. Victor pastor emeritus. Parnassus added, “We would be invited to their homes in West Hollywood.”
“Niederauer, ordained to the priesthood in 1962, is a prominent member of what some Catholic writers have dubbed the “Camarillo Mafia”, a group of liberal and dissident prelates who graduated from and/or taught at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, California, and who were ordained in Los Angeles in the 1950s and `60s.
“The LA Times wrote that the “trail of abuse” in the Los Angeles Archdiocese and its surrounding area dioceses “leads inevitably” to St. John’s. According to the Times, 10% of St. John’s ordinands for Los Angeles from 1950 to ‘65 have been accused of molesting minors. In two classes, 1966 and 1972, a third of the graduates were later accused of molestation,
“Niederauer is a long-time political activist in the “gay” cause. In 1986, Niederauer wrote a letter to an Orange County Judge asking that a priest convicted of 26 counts of felony child sexual abuse be spared prison time. He wrote that the boys involved might have mistaken “horseplay” for molestation, Niederauer later admitted that the letter had been a “mistake”.
“In 1996, as bishop of Salt Lake City, he helped form a coalition of religious leaders opposing the ban on high-school “gay-straight alliances” proposed by the Utah legislature.
In 2002, Niederauer told the National Catholic Register, “What I don’t want is some kind of link between being homosexual and being a molester of minors.”
In 2004, he joined other clergy leaders in publicly opposing a Utah ballot initiative that constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. Niederauer said he was troubled that the amendment banned any union beside marriage, a position in direct opposition to Catholic teaching.
Sam Sinnett, national president of Dignity USA, the dissident homosexual activist organization that opposes Church doctrine on chastity and marriage, said, “He is seemingly coming from a position of clearer knowledge of human sexuality than we’re hearing from the Vatican.”
Is 71-year-old Archbishop Niederauer, as described by Bill O’Reilly “an elderly man who was taken by surprise” when he gave communion to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?
Or is he a longtime gay activist dressed in a bishop’s mitre?
Archbishop Niederauer has been enabled in his homosexual advocacy by apathy on the part of most Catholics. Despite multiple reports of his statements on issues associated with homosexuality which were, at best, of dubious orthodoxy (including support for the homosexual advocacy film, Brokeback Mountain), most people did nothing about it. Now, since the San Francisco Sacrilege, and all the negative attention it has received, people have noticed, and there is less of the apathy Archbishop Niederauer has counted on to further his advocacy. So Archbishop Niederauer is scrambling to look like a Catholic bishop for the cameras.
Note: All underlined words are links to supporting articles. Click the links to see the supporting articles. The articles linked near the end of the post are important, because they demonstrate that Archbishop Niederauer is a progressive, "gay-friendly", Catholic bishop who has endorsed Brokeback Mountain, is soft on homosexual adoption, defended a priest who preyed on teenaged boys, has been slippery about Nancy Pelosi's pro-abortion stance, and has refused to deny Ms. Pelosi Holy Communion.
I watched the O'Reilly Factor's exposition of The San Francisco Sacrilege, which involved the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" being given Holy Communion by San Francisco Archbishop, George Niederauer.
You can watch the story, which was covered in two segments on Friday, October 12, 2007, at the top of the show:
I was disappointed to hear Mr. O'Reilly turn the entire story into a critique of San Francisco politicians, but not because those politicians don't deserve criticism. They do. Nancy Pelosi marched in a "Gay Pride" parade alongside Harry Hay, "a fierce advocate of man/boy love". Click here: When Nancy Met Harry
San Francisco politicians also deserve criticism for allowing events featuring criminal acts involving public nudity and public sexual contact in full view of minor children, like those that occur at the Folsom Street Fair, to take place without police intervention.
I was disappointed because Mr. O'Reilly gave Archbishop Niederauer a complete pass, and the most charitable reason I can offer is that he covered the story without looking any deeper into the situation. O'Reilly is either unaware of or completely ignored evidence of Archbishop Niederauer's progressive, "gay-friendly" agenda – an agenda I will document below.
Look, there is honestly no way that Archbishop Niederauer didn't know that men in drag were presenting themselves for Holy Communion in protest of Church teaching.
Homosexuals have been protesting at Catholic Mass for a long, long time. I was stunned to hear O'Reilly say he'd never heard of anything like it. I have, and it was much worse.
The militant homosexual group, ACT-UP, organized it's first "Stop the Church" protest on December 10, 1989 at St. Patrick's Cathedral, in New York. It was estimated that 4,500 ACT-UP and WHAM! members gathered outside St. Patrick's Cathedral to protest the Catholic Church's perceived "homophobia", and Church teaching with respect to so-called "safe sex education" and legal, elective abortion. 111 activists were arrested at the event. Some activists entered St. Patrick's Cathedral, and interrupted Mass. These activists threw used condoms at the altar, chained themselves to the pews, chanted slogans during the Mass and/or blocked the aisles by laying down on the floor. At least one member of ACT-UP received Holy Communion and spat out the Sacred Host in an act of protest against Catholic teaching on matters of sexual morality.
I'm surprised Mr. O'Reilly doesn't remember this, given the fact that the event received wide media coverage which, rightly, did not reflect well on ACT-UP. Here is the New York Times story on changes in tactics within ACT-UP as a result of the protest: Rude, Rash, Effective, Act-Up Shifts AIDS Policy
All of that being said, this is the angle O'Reilly neglected: There is tension within the Catholic Church between "progressive" priests and bishops, who are at odds with Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and orthodox priests and bishops who support authentic Catholic teaching on human sexuality. This editorial by Matt Abbott is an indication of that: The ‘Rainbow Sash Movement’ Controversy
Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly is unaware of these things, despite being a professed Catholic.
Still, there were a number of things Mr. O'Reilly left out of his report, possibly because he is not aware of them, but it was still disappointing, given Mr. O'Reilly's abilities and resources which should have enabled him to provide thorough coverage of the San Francisco Sacrilege.
Here are a few examples of the ways in which Mr. O'Reilly's coverage was deficient:
Claims that Archbishop Niederauer is simply a doddering old man who was easily confused are specious, at best. Niederauer could not possibly have been confused about the fact that men dressed as women wearing religious ornamentation presented themselves to receive the Most Holy Eucharist. One of the men was clearly wearing a headdress that was a modified version of those worn by traditional nuns. Both men were wearing clown make-up and were clearly presenting themselves as men dressing as women.
Moreover, the Archdiocese knows about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and knows of their involvement at Most Holy Redeemer Parish, which is known for its homosexual-friendly atmosphere and involvement in homosexual activism.
I must warn you that parts of this linked YouTube video detailing Most Holy Redeemer Parish involvement in a "pride" parade are obscene. (Note: Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, makes an appearance):"Gay Pride" in the Archdiocese of San Francisco
I'm also surprised that Mr. O'Reilly used video in his report that exposed Niederauer's comments about giving Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, but neglected to correlate Niederauer's soft stance on Pelosi's well known pro-abortion stance with a progressive agenda on Niederauer's part. That's hard to overlook. I suspect he ignored it because he was forcing the story to fit an angle, but his angle focused on San Francisco politics, and Pelosi was mentioned in his story. It really does seem O'Reilly deliberately ignored evidence that Niederauer did something wrong.
I'm extremely skeptical of the merit of so-called "recovered memories". I'm also wondering where the other boys/victims Hicks claimed to have encountered are now. I'm also concerned about Hicks' admission that he detests the Church, which would be a motive for lying.
I'm not familiar with many "recovered memories" detailing abuse that have proven true. Perhaps other people are, but experts seem to disagree about the merit of such memories, if they can be called that.
It is good that the accuser is revealing himself. This way the truth has a better chance of coming to light, and Bishop Brown has a better chance of clearing his name if he is innocent, because now people have a better sense of the allegations against him and the man behind them.
A lengthy quote from the Orange County Register article follows the jump...