Vatican Chooses Radical Conservative as Archbishop of San Francisco

 Salvatore Cordileone, 56, Roman Catholic of the Diocese of Oakland (California), has been named Archbishop of San Francisco by Pope Benedict XVI.  He will preside over the entire Bay Area of California.

With this move, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy could not have made their church any more obsolete and out of touch if they had tried.

In a city where the gay City Supervisor (Harvey Milk) and the City Mayor (George Moscone) were assassinated, Cordileone has ranted that it is not this hate, but rather "same-sex marriage" that is "...a plot of the evil one;”

In a time when multiple state and federal district and appeals courts have emphatically ruled thqat California’s Prop 8 is Unconstitutional...Cordileone takes pride in being one of the prime organizers to pass Prop 8 in the first place, in an effort to trump constitutional law with church canon law;

In a state that is widely viewed as one of the most progressive in the nation, Cordileone has called for a return to the Roman Catholic liturgies used in 1950.  At the annual meeting of the U.S. bishops in Baltimore in November, 2006 (just 6 years ago!),  he proposed to the group that the use of contraception be considered a ‘grave matter’ under church canon law (to their credit, they refused his request.)

In the city with the largest percentage of gays in America (15%), Cordileone claims a deep understanding of the  people in one breath, while calling the people of the Bay Area “radical” in the next;

And in the city named after Saint Francis of Assisi, the 12^th Century monk known for his vows of poverty and lifelong efforts to remove himself from power centers within the church... Cordileone successfully pursued his position with the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signora, the Vatican’s version of the Supreme Court, and highest body operating directly under Pope Benedict himself.

 The Vatican has chosen the man who might well be considered the single most combative conservative in the American Roman Catholic Church to provide pastoral oversight to the nation’s most liberal, forward-thinking, progressive cities.  It has chosen someone who spent countless hours sticking his thumb in the eyes of same-sex couples seeking marriage equality, and using his position to spread division and hate rather than peace, love and reconciliation.

It has chosen to declare a pointless war on the unforgiving, unrelenting tide of history itself.  And it will lose the battle with the sea changes in the generations ahead.

.

San Francisco Wrong to Tax Roman Catholic Church

In San Francisco, Tax Assessor Phil Ting has decided that the Roman Catholic Church owes over 15 Million dollars in taxes because the Archdiocese was restructured and consolidated a number of properties seven months ago. Each of the properties was technically incorporated seperately, as would be expected when a Church operates schools, family centers, day cares, hospitals, monestaries, church buildings, etc. Since, claims Ting, this consolidation involved the transfer of "separate legal entities," a real estate transfer tax applies.
Nonsense.

There are those, of course, who are cheering: anyone who has an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church is applauding the fact that San Francisco is going to 'take the churches money:' many gay activists mad at the Church's support of Proposition 8, those who have left the RC Church because the Church did not bend their theology to their own ideas, those who dislike "organized" religion, those with an imaginary view of history and RC atrocities somewhere in the past, those burned by the clergy sex abuse scandals. But disliking an institution is not an appopriate basis for deciding to use the coercive force of government to confiscate its assets via taxation.

Ironically, this flies in the face of a recent court decison in the same state.

On January 5, the California Supreme Court ruled that breakaway Episcopal parishes do not have the right to keep church property if they secede from the national denomination; they held, quite strongly, that all the various properties of the Episcopal Church belong to the national Episcopal Church, not the local congregation.

This was an appropriate ruling, as the Episcopal Church - like the Methodist, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches - is, in fact, "Episcopal" in government, meaning that the local congregation is really an administrative unit of the National Church. If a local congregation secedes, they can not take the church building or property with them. (This is the opposite of "baptist" and "Bible" Churches, which hold that the ultimate authority resides in local congregations.)

So here is the incredible - and disingenuous - contradiction:

On the one hand, the California Court has stated that all Church Property belongs to the Larger Church when that Church has an episcopal governing structure.

On the other hand, the City of San Francisco (or at least Assessor Ting) has stated that all of the units under the administration of an episcopal-governed Church are independent, so any 'consolidation' is a transfer of real estate from one entity to another, and, therefore, taxable.

These positions are mutually exclusive. It's one or the other, and the California Supreme Court has spoken.

As usual, Liberals are being inconsistent: they are cheering the decision in the Episcopal Church case, because it helps liberals within the Episcopal Church structure. But they are also cheering the San Francisco action, because it gets the 'big bad ctaholic church' (Isn't that the church that operates more hospitals, orphanages, and aid services than any other in the world? Oh, yeah...)

In other words, the sides being chosen in the battles are based on who people want to win, rather than what is good law.

The Episcopal Church case is correct, and good solid law with much precedent behind it. The San Francisco action is a raw abuse of government power.

Perhaps thats why non-profit organizations - such as churches - are not normally taxed in the first place: the power to tax is the power to destroy, and once government has 'authority,' it uses it UNEQUALLY to punish those it dislikes and favor those who are its friends.

There are those who support taxing the Roman Catholic Church because of its supposed 'political involvement' in conservative ballot issues. I wonder if these same persons would support revoking non-profit tax status for all of the churches that ran the civil rights marches in the 1960s....or revoking the tax status of HIV Service agencies who reguarly lobby for an increase in federal funding?

Best to keep the arms of government taxation far away, and not let them near non-profits of *any* kind.