Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  October 27, 2007
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

The Threat of Sacrilegious and Scandalous “San Francisco Values”

America’s Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, of course, but the Founders were secular moderates, not secular extremists, and they promoted religious values, not sacrilege and scandal.

Will sacrilegious and scandalous “San Francisco Values” contaminate all of America, like AIDS spread around the world, or be contained and collapsed, like “the Bulge” during World War II?

Was the election of “San Fran Nan” Pelosi, an apostate Catholic, as Speaker of the House a harbinger of even worse things to come?

Will candidates realize that there should be limits to the politics of inclusion?

After Democrats chose an apostate Catholic (Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts) as their presidential candidate in 2004, will Republicans do the same by nominating former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2008 and he will he remake the Republican party to suit his liberal, pro-abortion self? (Each time Mr. Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York City, he ran as the nominee of the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party.)

Will religious values be rejected and sacrilege and scandal be accepted in the name of “freedom”?

America’s Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, of course, but the Founders were secular moderates, not secular extremists, and they promoted religious values, not sacrilege and scandal.

Founder Oliver Ellsworth, a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explained that the clause prohibiting any religious test for public office was NOT intended to undermine religious values.

Ellsworth explained that “this clause is [not] unfavorable to religion," its “sole purpose and effect of [being] to exclude persecution and to secure…the important right of religious liberty.”

Ellsworth then explained what that means and does not mean: “In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person, he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or, in other words, he is not subject to persecution."

The Founders’ plan was to protect the private right of conscience of "good and peaceable" people, not to give atheists a veto power over governmental acknowledgement of God and support for religion generally.

Ellsworth: "[W]hile I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism."

Ellsworth would have been shocked by h the recent sacrilege and scandal in San Francisco reported by Luiz Sergio Solimeo in an astonishing article posted at The American Society for the Defense of Tradition Family and Property (and Ellsworth was not a Roman Catholic).

The article described the disgusting incident in necessary detail:

“The video clip shows the Archbishop of San Francisco, Most Reverend George H. Niederauer celebrating mass at Most Holy Redeemer Parish. Among the congregation are two men posing as women and wearing imitation nun habits. One of them is tall and with a moustache and has on his head a headdress of ribbons with the colors of the rainbow, a symbol used by the homosexual movement. Both have white makeup on their faces and the shorter one has painted lips and wears a necklace of ‘pearls.’

“At the hour of the sign of peace, the two discreetly kiss each other and then exchange greetings with other attendants.

“Everything about them identifies them as members of the homosexual group called the ‘Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.’ Their motto is a sacrilegious parody of Our Lord’s words for the adulteress (‘Go, and now sin no more,’ John 8:11): ‘Go forth and sin some more!’ This group has enjoyed a close relationship with the parish for some time.

“Then the Archbishop begins to distribute Holy Communion, the two transvestites join the line. When the turn came for the mustached one, the Archbishop gives him a blessing, then, but after a short (inaudible) dialogue, gives him Communion in his black-gloved hands. The transvestite with painted lips receives Communion without any problem.

“At the end of the clip, one can see the two transvestites entirely at ease at the coffee-and-donuts session after Mass, conversing a few steps away from the Archbishop.”

The Archbishop said that he did not realize the transvestites belonged to the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” or “recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb” when they presented themselves to receive Holy Communion.

The Archbishop:

“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 article reported:

“Many Catholics found that the apology was ‘terribly incomplete’ since the Archbishop apologizes only for having given Communion to persons dressed ‘in a mock religious habit’ which is ‘deeply offensive to women religious’ without a word about the sacrilegious insult perpetrated against the Holy Eucharist, let alone the gravity of the vice of sodomy.

“That omission is all the more lamentable since, as many have noted, Archbishop Niederauer has previously taken many disconcerting stands in regard to homosexuality. To cite only two of those, when he was the diocesan bishop of Salt Lake City he opposed an initiative to hold a state constitutional referendum to ban ‘same-sex marriage.’ Last year, as Archbishop in San Francisco, he praised the homosexual propaganda movie, Brokeback Mountain.”

Dissatisfaction was demanded by the circumstances. Priests and bishops are obligated to uphold the tenets of their faith, to identify sin, and to rebuke sinners. St. Augustine wrote: “Medicinal rebuke must be applied to all who sin, lest they should either themselves perish, or be the ruin of others…. Let no one, therefore, say that a man must not be rebuked when he deviates from the right way, or that his return and perseverance must only be asked from the Lord for him.”

Bay Area Reporter, a homosexual publication, reported on an interview with a member of the Parish Council of Most Holy Redeemer Church:

“Matt Dorsey, an openly gay member of the church's parish council, dismissed the criticisms against the Sisters receiving the Eucharist as having little to do with Catholicism. …. ‘This organization [the Saint Joseph Men’s Association] is a hard right fundamentalist group that does not represent mainstream Catholics, and frankly, does not espouse any teaching of Jesus Christ I am aware of,’ said Dorsey. ‘The same people object to Communion being given to Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Rudy Giuliani. The truth is this isn't about religion; it is about the culture war and their efforts to drag the archbishop into it. As for the archbishop's apology, Dorsey called it narrowly tailored. ‘He apologized for not knowing what was going on,’ he said. ‘The Sisters are irreverent but also share a mission of social justice with the church. They do a lot of important work for our community.’”

Mr. Dorsey is promoting a political agenda and does not speak for the Roman Catholic Church, of course.

On April 23, 2004, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, authoritatively explained at a press conference in Rome that unrepentant pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians should be denied Communion. Relying on Canon 915, which specifies that "[t]hose...who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion," Cardinal Arinze put it succinctly: "If they should not receive, then they should not be given."

A month earlier, the Vatican had issued a statement specifying that “anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession” when possible and that it is for “the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse” when “Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately.”

Despite authoritative Vatican opposition to the receipt of Holy Communion by persons professing to be both Catholics in a state of grace and abortion supporters, ardent pro-abortion “Catholics” like Speaker Pelosi seek and receive Holy Communion sacriegiously and scandalously.

It is for those who dispense Holy Communion to follow the mandate of Canon 915. Bishops who are reluctant to embarrass prominent politicians need to recall that Jesus had no patience for those moneychangers in the Temple. Protecting the sanctity of the Temple was His paramount consideration then. The protection of the Holy Eucharist must be the bishops’ paramount consideration today.

Averting public scandal is vital. St. Thomas Aquinas explained that a distinction “must be made” between secret and open sinners, and “Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it,” because “[h]oly things are forbidden to be given to…notorious sinners….”

A priest who knowingly gives Communion to a pro-abortion politician commits the grave sin of sacrilege as well as the unfit recipient. Neither political correctness nor political expediency excuses sin.

"Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2120.

St. Paul was unambiguous: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." 1 Corinthians 11:27-28.

"Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in a state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1415.

"The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1395

The article contended that the parish in which the sacrilege and scandal occurred had been hospitable to it:

“Instead of helping people overcome their bad inclinations, the ‘pastoral’ policy of Most Holy Redeemer Parish, where the above mentioned Eucharistic sacrilege took place, favors vice.

“The pastor of this parish is Fr. Steve Merriwether, a graduate in sacred theology, and, until recently, chancellor of the archdiocese. It is not easy to see how this pastor implements the maxim attributed to Saint Augustine, ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner.’ Where, for example, is ‘hate the sin’ in this salutation to the faithful? “’You will find [in Most Holy Redeemer Parish] the good people of our parish old, young, married, gay, lesbian, transgender, affluent, homeless, blue-collar, converts, cradle Catholics, radical, traditional, questioning, fervent.’

“On the Internet, his parish is presented as follows:

‘[A]n inclusive Catholic community embracing all people of good faith, Catholics as well as those people interested in learning about the Catholic experience, regardless of their background, gender, race, social status or sexual orientation. …The parish offers a spiritual home to all: senior citizens and youth; single people and families; those who are straight, gay and lesbian; the healthy and the sick, particularly persons with HIV disease.’

“Here one can clearly notice the influence of homosexual ideology, which subversively mixes radically different categories such as race, age, gender and social status, with moral behavior.

”However, Father Steve does more than just offer verbal support. He encourages, even with his priestly blessing, a group of the parish to participate officially in an event called ‘Gay Pride’ by carrying a large sign with the name of the parish. Such an attitude by the parish pastor not only favors this vice against nature but encourages parishioners to mix with semi-dressed or even totally undressed men and women, exalting all types of deviations, even the most brutal ones.”

The article reported the following profane parish promotions:

”… the parish has lent or rented its premises for homosexual events. Thus, in 2006 they hosted ‘Revival Bingo’ promoted by the ‘Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.’ That game included immoral acts and offered pornographic DVDs and ‘sex toys’ as prizes.”

“On September 29, 2007, the parish hosted a show of transvestites titled ‘Desperate Divas 2008 Grand Drag Pageant,’ which the organizers described as follows: ‘Twelve of the Bay Area's most delicious drag divas will compete for the Crown and Title of Miss Desperate Diva 2008, culminating in the big reveal of who will grace the cover of the 2008 Desperate Divas Drag calendar, which will be available for purchase for the first time at the event.’”

As Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani cross-dressed on occasion. Not being a Bay Area resident, he was ineligible for that competition.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to,,, and and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is

Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2007 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2024 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved