Skip to main content

"The REAL apology that is owed by Niederauer is for seeing nothing wrong with [homosexual] adoption! "

From Gary Morella
stlouisix@msn.com

[homosexual]

Does the Archbishop of San Francisco believe that we were all born yesterday in regard to his incredible statement of apology, which is laughable?

The REAL apology that is owed by Niederauer is for not being a good shepherd to his flock by saying nothing to them whatsoever in regard to the abomination that is Most Holy Redeemer Church's blatant public promotion of sodomitic lifestyles. The REAL apology that is owed by Niederauer is for seeing nothing wrong with sodomite adoption!

The REAL apology that is owed by Niederaruer is for not publicly condemning, in the strongest terms possible, the filth of the sodomitic Folsom and Castro street fairs, and the promotion of sodomitic lifestyles at the state, county, and city levels, to particularly include San Francisco, with an attitude that is "to heck with the children in his state in complete ignorance of Matthew 18:6!"

You make think that you are fooling people, Archbishop Niederauer, by your worthless apology. If you do, you are delusional. Long suffering Catholics have caught your act and those of your ilk in California too many times. You have done nothing to rein in Catholic frauds, in particular your Mayor, who is absolutely giddy at the prospect of putting as many of his constituents on the fast track to hell with him as possible in the matter of advocating for oxymoronic sodomite marriage!

The REAL apology that is owed by the Archbishop of San Francisco is for NOT BEING A CATHOLIC!

And finally, the ultimate REAL apology is owed by Rome to Catholics worldwide in giving us wolves in sheeps clothing masquerading as bishops who could not care less about the eternity of the souls entrusted to them! -
Gary L. Morella


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





From :
Allyson Smith
Sent : Friday, October 12, 2007 10:22 AM
To :
Subject : Arbp. Niederaurer apologizes












--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment : winmail.dat (< 0.01 MB)


http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=539c6e14-5a30-491e-9d2d-ef4351486eb8


Published: October 12, 2007


"I must apologize"


Statement released Oct. 11 by Archdiocese of San Francisco regarding
archbishop giving communion to two "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence"


Below is Archbishop George H. Niederauer's column for the Oct. 19 issue of
Catholic San Francisco, the archdiocesan newspaper that is mailed to 85,000
households. This statement was provided to California Catholic Daily by
Maurice E. Healy, director of archdiocesan communications.

A recent event that greatly concerns me needs some additional explanation --
and with it an apology.

On Sunday, October 7, 2007, I celebrated Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Parish
here in San Francisco, during my first visit there. The congregation was
devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. I noticed no
demonstration, no protest, no disruption
of the Eucharist.

At Communion time, toward the end of the line, two strangely dressed persons
came to receive Communion. As I recall one of them wore a large flowered hat
or garland. I did not recognize either of them as wearing mock religious
garb.

Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the
organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a
practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in
particular. My predecessors,
Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this
group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I
instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the
group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it.

In the year and a half since I arrived in San Francisco, there have been
several instances of offensive attacks on Catholic faith and devotional
life. Only two weeks ago Catholic San Francisco carried my remarks
condemning the derisive use of the image of the Last Supper on a poster
printed by another local group.

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did
not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular
organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake.

I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to
Catholics at large for doing so.

The manner of dress and public comportment of the Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence is deeply offensive to women religious and to the witness of
holiness and Christian service that women religious have offered to the
Church and to the world for centuries. The citizens of San Francisco have
ample reason to be grateful to women religious for their unfailing support
of those most in need, and to be deeply offended when that service is
belittled so outrageously and offensively.

Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make
a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold
sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not
appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of
the Church to give the Sacrament to them.

Therefore I conclude that the presence of the Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence at the Mass on October 7th was intended as a provocative gesture.
In that moment I failed to recognize it as such, and for that, as I have
said, I must apologize.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...