Salvatore Cordileone

Later this year, the Diocese of Oakland’s bishop will become archbishop of the San Francisco Diocese, which covers nearly 500,000 Catholics from Marin County to San Mateo. Incoming Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, a San Diego native, has been a prominent leader in the opposition to same-sex marriage. He joins us to talk about his vision for the Catholic Church.

San Francisco’s New Archbishop 8 August,2012forum

Salvatore Cordileone, newly named archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • Gibbons in SF

    Welcome, Archbishop Cordileone!

    • Gary

       Yes, welcome, and please keep your hands off the children.

  • Colin

    The Archbishop has been quoted in a June 2012 interview as stating that recognition of same-sex marriage would be “bad for children.”  Considering the Catholic Church’s long and well-documented history of permitting pedophile priests to abuse children, covering the abuse up and then transferring or promoting the abusers, how is he in any way qualified to opine on what is in the best interests of children?

    • Michelle

      The Catholic Church does not condone any abuse of children.  Your comment is insincere and disrespectful.  We come to Forum for honest dialogue, not petty bullying.

      • Rhet

         The mafia does not condone the murder of informants. Anyone who says that is insincere and disrespectful. We come to Forum for honest dialogue, not petty whistle blowing.

      • $2870056

        We go to city hall for a marriage license – not a bullying church.

      • Richard Dugan2001

         The Church by refusing to allow Priests to marry has defacto created the social environment that causes some priests to abuse children. Consider that many pedophiles knowing they cannot have any meaningful relationship with an adult woman turn to the church as an escape. But they fail to sublimate their sexual desires and eventually use their position of trust to abuse young girls and boys out of their sexual frustrations.

        • TrainedHistorian

          Utter nonsense. 
          Sexual abuse of children happens in many, indeed probably all, societies where heterosexual marriage is the norm, or even required because the unmarried are stigmatized or even penalized legally.  In traditional Muslim societies, which expected imams & other religious personnel to marry, sexual abuse of boys was common, and marriages to female children (even as young as nine) was condoned by standard interpretations of Islamic law. So no, allowing, even requiring, marriage certainly does not and will not eliminate child sex abuse. In pagan Roman Empire under Augustus the law penalized citizens who did not marry (the state wanted to promote procreation) but the sexual abuse of boys & girls (thru child prostitution) was very common, and marriage to females as young as 12 permitted. What causes sexual abuse of children are laws and norms that fail to recognize that a boy or girl is NOT old enough to really consent to sex, and therefore should not be fair sexual  game, whether through it’s through marriage or extra-marital relations. And many, many societies in the past and present fail to recognize this.  Legitimated sexual abuse of female chilrren is incredibly common in much of the Middle East, South Asia and Africa through underage marriage, and the failure to recognize the idea of marital rape. 

  • Lucia LaRocca

    I’ve heard the archbishop elect found his meeting with Dave Brubeck more overwhelming than meeting Pope John Paul II. In light of his love of music, what are his thoughts on music in the church?

  • Mark

    The Catholic hierarchy comes across as more concerned about sexual and reproductive issues, power, and covering up on its own sexual and administrative misconduct and not very concerned about social justice issues, going so far as attacking its own nuns who put social justice issues as a priority.
    What are his views on the priority needed on these issues?


    • Yourbrotherinchrist

      We invite you to become a minister and help us with the social work we are doing in this archdiocese that it is never mentioned because it is not intended to be public and to make headlines on the news…

    • Michelle

      I would not differentiate sexual morality and social justice.  We women suffer most from this promiscuous culture – single motherhood, the trauma of abortion, resulting depression and high suicide rates, not to mention the poverty and health problems single motherhood causes children.  I commend the Catholic Church for consistently teaching sexual morality that protects women and men from the many bad consequences of promiscuity.

      • Mark

         My question is a matter of priority. While the issues you bring up around women are social justice issues, there are differences between sexual morality and social justice. Being poor and hunger and the reason behind it are not all caused by sexual immorality. Not all poor are single moms. There are men and families. Race, social status you were born into, where you live, education all have to do with social justice. I am not saying the Catholic Church does not do good things or teach good morals. I support the nuns.

      • $2870056

        Ha ha ha ha ha.

        Consistency in church used to require sexual abstinence – celibacy for all men and women, married or not.

        • Michelle

          You are wrong.  If married people were celibate, they would not have children. 

          • $2870056

            Read up a little on early catholic dogma and teaching about “marriage.”

          • TrainedHistorian

            I HAVE read every extant ante-Nicene Christian patristic writer and many of the Post-Nicene ones. They certainly did NOT say that you have to be celibate in marriage! It’s you who clearly have not read the relevant primary sources writers. They criticized the groups that insisted on complete celibacy. Read Clement on Alexandria (Stromateis) or Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church): they both criticized Encratists and other groups that insisted on complete celibacy. Even Jerome, who was a monk, recoginized that having children in marriage, though considered a “lesser” state than virginity, was acceptable, even a religious good.   

        • TrainedHistorian

          NOT accurate. Early Church encouraged celibacy, whether in marriage or not.  It did NOT require abstinence in marriage. You are quite wrong on that point. Encourage is not the same as required. Early Church criticized groups like Encratists who wanted complete celibacy. 

    •  Mark,

      You seem to have zero grasp of what Catholicism is, and speak to what you think Catholicism-to-your-liking should be.  Social justice and faith go hand-in-hand.  A nun cannot realistically support the plight of poor immigrants if she thinks a poor immigrant woman should have been aborted by her mother.  Besides, the group of so-called ‘socially just’ nuns that you are supporting, have their own coverup.  They refuse to comply with the rules to prevent further abuse that the “big bad hierarchy” implemented years ago.  They remain silent to abuse victims and SNAP.  What are your views on these issues?

      • Mark

        How quickly you come to judge my grasp of what Catholicism is. You read a lot into what I have posted. My original question goes to priority and balance. The Catholic Church hierarchy, especially in the US bishops speak louder on issues of sex and reproduction and are trying to mute social justice issues like quieting the nuns. There has been a push from much of the US Church hierarchy to support Republican candidates even though Republican party is for the death penalty, support by the NRA (guns rampant in society), cut funding for education and privatize it, and cut social programs many which go for poor families and children. Current social policies are increasing the gap between the rich and poor and the middle class is being reduced. This is a fact.
        If we tackle hunger, housing, education, living wages, open up opportunities for work to allow people to move up the economic ladder, abortion will  be greatly reduced. People who have hope for the future and the future of their kids will make better decisions. You can’t legislate morality. You have to educate, empower, and show and live by example, and let people make their choices. God gave us free will. Give the people the tools and position to make good choices.
        The churches handling of victim’s abuse by church officials and  the moving around of abuser has been very sad. The church should just come clean and open. Atone for their sins. If you stand for morality you must lead by example. Why single out the nuns on church viictim abuse, I hold the chuch as a whole for it. Look the Catholic Church has the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is an instution made of people that are faluable. Part of morality is take responsability for your actions. They will know you are Chrititains by your actions, not what you say, or what you legislate. If you say one thing but your actions are something else which will you be judged on?

        •  You say the nuns are being “muted” regards to social justice – don’t you see that if Catholics see abortion as killing babies, it is a matter of social justice?!

          As to the reason they are being muted – it’s for a dozen other reasons, rather than real social justice.

          Yes – priest abuse handling was poor, and they should be atoning.  What about the nuns?

          Screw Republicans, Screw Democrats.

          • Mark

            Reproduction and abortion are not the only social justice issue. The church hierarchy is making priorities this issue and same sex marriage above other social justice issues in both is verbal and political stance. It tries to quiet others that are point this out and saying that other social justice issues are just as important. The money and effort spent on marriage could go to feeding the poor and other social justice issues. You can’t legislate morality. Especially when you yourself (the church) is morally on shaky legs. You can though make a difference in peoples lives by your actions.

            Yes – priest abuse handling was poor, and they should be atoning.  What about the nuns?
            I said the whole church should atone for their sins and be transparent. They should not be having to be taken to court to atone for what has happened. This not moral.

            Screw Republicans, screw Democrats is a cop-out. You get the government you elect.

          •  It’s a priority because basic freedoms are being ignored – for example, the right of a religious group not to hand out contraceptives and abortificients – should they not EVEN have the right to protest actions they are forced to take in LAW?  C’mon..

            They do not make same-sex union an issue above others, except when governments and others begin to hoist these things on people for political gain.

            You can use that line of argumentation against ANYTHING any Church stands against, whenever politicians use issues to divide voters.  Any time the Church holds any stand, they can be accused of making priority over other things, or being political – the fact is, the politics affect morality.  Religion has a duty to take a stand on Morality. To stay on the sideline is a copout.

            When episcopalians support all liberal agendas, no one accuses them of playing politics – even when politics is clearly their intention – why is that?

          • Mark

             Well Onehit Wonder responding to below as the reply button is gone., I do think religion should take a political stance and the people that make up the church to vote their beliefs. I agree it would be a cop-out not to.
            Government is about all the people and should be for all the people. I do not think marriage is solely owned by a church. I would be against any law of government “that would force a religious institution “to hand out contraceptives and abortificients” or be required to marry same sex people. I am unaware of any current law that does. A lot is implied for political stirring. I am for the separation of church and state.
            The only social justice issues you seem to be worried about are reproductive/abortion and marriage, I would say the Catholic Church fits you well.
            I bring up other social justice issues and you are silent just like the Catholic Church hierarchy. 
            I was born and raised Catholic and went to a Catholic High School. I hold the church to a higher level of morality as that is what they preach. They continue to fail and at the same time try and dictate morality to others. They need to self reflect and clean up their actions. The poor and helpless are at their shinny Church doors and Cathedrals what will they do?
            Peace be with you.

      • Rhet

         Oh, such exquisite details. Who cares? Religion is nonsense for people who want to escape from reality.

        • Nxttogo

          Yes you have a winning formula for changing minds. Regardless of what religion is, it is impacting our society as a whole and issues I care about. Religion is a reality. Dismissing it would be stupid.

  • Rhet

    Why does anyone still need religion? It’s a bunch of lies and sheer nonsense, invented to control and subdue the masses and extract money out of them. (And in the case of Catholicism, it appears a kind of sexual child sacrifice if required too.) People who really believe in religious horse-doodoo should be prohibited from using the end products of science, like cell phones, computers, cars, TV, books and air travel. You want a Stone Age mentality? Embrace it fully.

    • Ccatholic

      As free as you are to make these comments as free as we are to choose to be part of a religion. God Bless You

      • Rhet

         Sure, you are free to believe in pink elephants in the sky if you want, but religion is basically mental masturbation. It may give you pleasure, but it is utterly detached from reality.

        •  Tell Vladimir Putin.. make sure you wear a bullet proof vest

          • Rhet

             A human being who insists that there is a god despite the utter lack of any credible evidence whatsoever is one that strips themselves of much of their dignity. They become a vector of transmission for the virus of religion.

          •  What kind of evidence do you want?  And if you were presented it, wouldn’t you dismiss it and the presenter?

          • Rhet

            To Oneshit:
            Evidence of gods has to be scientifically testable and reproducible. A claim, if it involves physical reality, is a scientific claim must be submitted to scientific scrutiny. Religion *has* been assess in this way and it has failed.

          • You’d know..

      • $2870056

        As free as you are to stay out of other people’s lives.

        • Who’s making you attend church?

          • Rhet

             So the churches are not politically active?

          • Churches are made up of people, as are political viewpoints.  Just as science evidences that gender and sexuality are fluid, so is are the boundaries between religion and politics.

          • Rhet

            To Onehit (sorry about the typo, bro)
            The Catholic church has always sided with fascist governments, and in America it sides with loony anti-gay anti-abortion crypto-fascists. This is not normal concern for the fate of society.
            All of it based on invented nonsense written in a “holy” book by overly controlling fiends 2000 years ago.

          • I think you have Catholicism confused with Evangelicalism.  Catholics don’t have “All of it based on invented nonsense written in a ‘holy’ book by overly controlling fiends 2000 years ago.”  If you don’t that very basic article, then anything you mention regarding Catholicism, can be taken lightly.

          • Rhet

             Religion is invented horse crap, no matter what flavor it is.
            Prove your god exists. Until then, don’t expect us to respect your loony ideas.

          •  Politics is invented horsecrap – as is capitalism, communism, and all the others.. that statement is not scientific evidence of anything (your standard).  I’m not attempting to persuade you of any gods or goddesses.  You set up a false premise.  You must be off your scientific model today.

          • Rhet

            You’re not trying to persuade me because you can’t.
            You’re like a used car salesman and I see 1000 things wrong with the crap you’re selling.
            Religious people focus on brainwashing children, they’re easy targets for you all, in more ways than one.

          • $2870056

            Entering City Hall to get a marriage license, should not be seen as entering a church, any church.  Stay out of our City Hall.

    • Miguel Moreno

      Dear Rhet,
      I hope you are well.Even one of religion’s biggest skeptics James G. Frazier realized that religion addresses our ultimate issues: life, death, etc. Science does not talk about the “WHY?” You are free to believe/say whatever you wish. As for Catholicism we shamefully had some deviant priests. They deserve some long sentences. They were acting AGAINST Church teaching.The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel, and Copernicus himself were both Catholic priests. Sir Isaac Newton was a believer. Christians have added significantly to the body of knowledge.
      As for prohibiting believers from consuming goods—well that’s just plain un-American!Stone Age? We are an Iron Age religion :)On that note, the Church is into its Third Millenium. Been around a long time, made many mistakes and so–gained a lot of wisdom. I welcome you to join us someday.Peace be with you in all that you do.Sincerely, 
      Miguel MorenoSan Jose, CARef: 

      • Rhet

        Religious indoctrination of children, which is strategically done before they can think for themselves and therefore before they can defend their minds, is a form of child abuse. Religion violates the child’s mind, even when priests don’t violate the child’s body.

        • RegularListener

          Any kind of education of children could be seen as indoctrination since children are not really old enough  to choose it or as you say “defend ” against it. Kids are also taught patriotism, ethnic pride and all sorts of other secular values that have no real “objective” educational content. Do these “violate” the child’s mind too?.  In any case, experience shows that some people brought up in ve4ry religious households, or, what is far worse, in totalitarian societies where the state severely penalizes alternate views, do leave the religion or become disillusioned with the political system.  So your extremist language about religion “violating” the mind of children is not really warranted or helpful. .

  • Jean

    Congratulations Archbishop Cordileone! The Diocese of San Francisco is blessed to have such a faithful leader who is courageous enough to stand up for truth & the teachings of the Church. Be assured of our continued prayers for you!

    • $2870056

      Yep, congratulations – and stay out of my family and our lives.

      Not everyone in the world is a “catholic.”

    • Richard Dugan

       I have not seen any brave statements coming from this man. The entire thrust of his statements is adherence to the party line of the church. He has zero respect for women’s rights or gay rights and he has not supported the Catholic Nuns in their quest to improve the church through various truths like acceptance of birth control etcetera. All I see is a man selling phony eternal insurance policies to frightened and ignorant people.

  • Barry

    Ho hum, I wish KQED would stay out of religion and quit giving credence to superstitions and medieval thinking.

    • Greg

       They have to. Their mandate is to divide and conquer Americans by fixating on squabbling “communities”.

  • Jimb

    If marriage is all about having and raising the natural children of the married couple, and that’s the reason for being against gay marriage, then why isn’t he against ANY marriage where the couple either can’t have children or choose not to have children?

    •  Strawman

    • Michelle

      Because gay marriage *intentionally* separates children from being raised by a monther and a father.  That is a violation of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.

      • Rhet

        Religion *intentionally* separates children from rational, fact-based worldviews. That is a violation of the United
        Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  • Rhet

    This arch-bishop says he support migrants and YET he laments the plight of poor blacks.

    He can’t have it both ways. Those migrants take jobs that blacks could have used, if the migrants’ presence had not reduced the wages of those migrants and locked out those blacks.

    •  So you support poor blacks or migrants – or do you have them both equally?

      • Rhet

         Nation states have borders for a reason: To protect the citizens of those nation states. If migrants conspire with business owners to lock out blacks or anybody else who has citizen status, then I stand with my fellow citizens of course!

        •  I see.  How very small minded of you.

          • Rhet

            Supporting democracy, nation, and fellow citizens is high-minded.
            Supporting law-breaking migrants is craven and corrupt.

          •  So are you a voting Democrat?

  • Rachel

    So, if marriage is all about having kids, what about those of us who don’t want to have children? Does that mean we don’t deserve to get married?

    Marriage is also about companionship and commitment and about having the state recognize that you have certain rights in regard to your partner. You should have the right to visit them in the hospital, to leave your partner your estate when you die, etc. It doesn’t matter to me whether you call it marriage or civil union, same sex couples deserve these same rights that the rest of us get.

    • Sarah

      Remember that catholic church is against contraception too. So you would e sinning if you marry and choose not to have children.

    • TrainedHistorian

      It may not matter to you what they’re called, but the fact is is that many are insisting that gay civil unions, which California & several other states already recongize, are not adequate & that these unions have to be called “marriage,” and that the right to marry whom you want is a constitutional right on a par with voting, jury service, the right to work & so forth, and that all people claiming to be “married” not only derserve rights like visitation but subsidies, the biggest one being Social Security.

      Insisting on a constitutional right to “marriage” raises a lot more contentious issues than civil unions. If anyone has the constitutional right to marry whom they want, what’s to prevent “fundamentalit Mormons”, Muslims & others from claiming the right to marry more than one spouse? And the unmarried & monogamous would have to subsidize the polygamous by providing Social Security benefits to each spouse, thus paying more to them than they will ever get in benefits because they had only one or no spouse. And providing them more in inheritance tax breaks than they will ever receive.
      Since most Americans (gays, straights, even the polygamous) agree that a monogamous couple is an acceptable household structure, almost everyone has been willing to subsidize this thru the spousal Social Security benefit, which was mainly implemented because until the 1970s women faced legal job & education discrimination and so could rarely earn enough to qualify for social Security from their own earnings.  But a significant portion of Americans do not agree that a gay marriage is equally deserving of such a subsidy, and and even larger numbers of Americans think polygamy should not be subdiszed at all.

      Social Security needs to be reformed so that everyone over a certain age qualifies, regardless of whether they were married. This would solve the problem of spousal benefits going to what many consider “unacceptable” household formations.

  • A committed gay couple could make better parents than many foster parents. What is really needed are two people with the free time to take care of their kids and provide positive role models, their gender does not matter.

  • Lackeysean

    Dear sir, gay people as well as merrage have existed long before your churches meglomenical doctrine, if you decide as an institution to weigh in on my rites,you have that option, but you should likewise loose your tax exemp status

    •  Which “rites”?

      • Lackeysean

        The state of California granted gay people the rite of merrage – than the church payed for propositions to repeal the rite- thus should loose its tax exempt status. The reason they are called rites is Beacause they are non-negotiable.

        • I see.  So States grant “rites”?

          • Lackeysean

            Your arguements are a red herring- and to answer your question- yes.

          • Good thing you’re not dictator of the world.

            States recognize human rights – States cannot grant anything, that suggests that the State also has the power to take it away – which would mean it is not a right at all.

  • Apinoyboi

    He keeps on saying a child needs a mother and a father, but what about all the single families out there?  all the single mothers raising their children, are they not recognized a family to him?? 

  • Corning

    Dave Iverson is doing great so far asking the hard questions; however it’s a mistake to invite this guest. It was clear he would simply rehash offensive anti-gay positions. He deserves no attention.

  • Sfthespian

    What the Archbishop has to say is infuriating. Billboards that encourage fathers to act like fathers has nothing to say about whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to married. It only sends the message that if you have fathered a child, you should take the responsibilty that goes along with your actions. It is this Archbishop’s line of thinking that has driven me and countless friends of mine further away from the Church.

  • Denny Smith

    I am an openly gay man from a devout Catholic family, and I am also the biological father of two wonderful kids whose raising I share equally with thier biological mom. The archbishop conflates relationships that don’t require conflation! I can confidently parent my kids with their mother and STILL marry the man of my dreams! The church is ignoring peoples’ real lives.

  • rockanne

    Clearly based on many of these comments that are simply attacks and not engaging in the dialogue at hand you aren’t even listening.  Just came to bully, huh?

    • Rhet

       Clearly religion is about imposing invented beliefs on helpless impressionable children. Religion just came to bully all of society.

      •  Clearly you are a religious man then, imposing your invented beliefs on us all!

  • $2870056

    Putting a “law from a bible” into a state (secular) Constitution, demonstrates a total lack of faith.

    Insisting all non-catholics abide, is sheer bigotry and fascist.

    • Postul8

       No surprise then that the Catholic church has always sided with fascist dictators in South America, Central America, and Europe.

  • Jane Smith

    I can’t believe my ears. This allegedly intelligent archbishop says because a billboard says take time to be a father it means he has to be a BIOLOGICAL FATHER and furthermore that adoption can only be performed by a father and a MOTHER. He’s not only stupid, he’s dangerous to the thousands of children waiting for someone to adopt them and love them. My husband was sexually abused by a prince of the church — who was his biological uncle — and so was his sister. Doubtless this would not have happened had this priest been allowed to live a normal life among people who loved him. This new archbishop needs reassignment. He certainly doesn’t belong in a city that values people for who they are, not who they sleep with.

    •  So you would dictate to a religious group who should be their leader and what he should say and believe? How very totalitarian of you.   Be wary of molesters, surely, but he would have been a greater danger around “normal people” don’t you think?  As to your poor husband, get him counseled.. and watch for signs.

    • TrainedHistorian

      “Doubtless this would not have happened had this priest been allowed to live a normal life among people who loved him.”

      What does this mean? Are you implying that celibacy causes abuse of children, as R. Duggan did above? Clearly that is completely FALSE. Most sexual abuse of children is committed by heterosexual males, many of whom are married or have girlfriends or other sex partners.  Far more sexual abuse of children is committed by older male relatives of any religion or none than by Roman Catholic priests, for the obvious eason that that the percentage of males in any society who are R.C. priests is quite tiny, while the percentage of girls & boys experiencing sex abuse is quite high (estimates are one in six boys, possibly as many as half of girls).

      Where is your evidence that abusers were not allowed a “normal life” or were unloved? Not true in my own experience and observations with sex abuse as a child. Child abuse is committed by people who have the opportunity, accessibility & power. This is why it is so commonly done by male relatives against younger family members, especially girls. Very often they are the most privileged, & therefore most loved & respected family members (the father, the older brother, uncle, cousin, stepfather etc).. who prey on the least privileged: the younger, the females, etc becasue they know they can get away with it. (Until recently, children weren’t believed if testifying vs. adult relatives. Many cultures still privilege male testimony vs. female). Though not raised in R.C. church, I suspect priests & authorities in other religions got away with this for the same reason that older male relatives got away with it so often: they were assumed to be more virtuous and deserve more respect than those lower down on the social totem pole like children, laity, females…This skewed power dynamic across age & gender is NOT unique to the  Roman Catholic church, which is why plenty of child sex abuse is committed by non-clergy & non-Catholics.

  • Lwtrower

    Children do not need a mother and a father. Children need two loving parents. I am disappointed to hear the archbishop not truly understanding the complexity of parenthood and the reality of the world we live in. My partner and I have a wondeful baby boy and when he was born, his “Mother” also know as an egg donor was not near by. He has two loving fathers.

    • TrainedHistorian

      And just who gave birth to the child? I find the way you put this extemely callous towards the women who made “your” child possible. The child is certainly also the child of the woman who gave birth to him.
      Because of the enormous health and emotional sacrifices of pregnancy, it is a serious moral offense to deprive a birth mother of contact and involvement with her child (yes it’s her child too), and I hope that you & your partner have not done this. Throughout history women, particularly lower status women, have been exploited by wealthier and more powerful men for their reproductive capabilities. The samurai called women a “borrowed womb” they & -status males in polygynous societies shamefully exploited concubines to provide heirs, often depriving them of contact with their own children).  An egg donor too needs to have the right to contact with her child respected, even though her physical burden is less than a birth mother.
      I am not against gays adpoting children, but I am against women’s reproduction being exploited to provide others with children.

  • Bonnano

    I have been working with abused children for the past 25 years.  They all, 100%, have come from male/female relationships.  I am appalled by the bigotry and backward thinking of this person.  This show only reinforces my decision to leave the catholic church 38 years ago!  

  • sequoia141

    Please ask the bigoted Archbishop about how priests love molesting young boys and how the Church always tries to cover up these horrendous crimes and protect the perpetrators. And while we’re at it, ask him how the Church can still support the stupid idea of being fruitful and muliplying when we have an unsustainable world population of 7+ billion people, many of whom are starving.

    •  bull crap

      • Rhet

         Religion is bull crap, but Catholicism is organized crime.

    • TrainedHistorian

      This is both ad hominem and a non sequitur.  If you have a disagreement with what was said by the speaker, you need to actually address it.

  • Sarah

    A serious moral evil that’s a constitutional right! Church get out of the state,now!

  • Nadine Burke

    The archbishops arguments about gay marriage are the reason I left the catholic church. Rather than being straightforward that the church considers homosexuality a sin, he claims that it’s about allowing kids to have fathers. Anyone who works with kids waiting to be adopted by loving parents can see straight through that. Please, be honest with us.

    • Michelle

      Hi Nadine, the interviewer asked specifically about “gay marriage” not about moral teachings related to homosexuality.  I disagree that having two mothers/two fathers is as good for children as having a father and mother.  That’s just common sense; we all want a mother and father.

      • lolly caust

         many kids would chose no father (or mother, in some cases) over their abusive one.

      • Blackmarketcaterer

        bushwa-i know so many children of gay marriages, they are as happy and healthy and well adjusted as any other kid. My god son, for example.
        i thisnk your arguments are plain old sterotyping silleiness. Got any proof?

  • Richard

    Since the Catholic Church does not allow divorce, do you advocate that this religious belief be imposed on the secular society to preserve a “traditional marriage” with a mother and father, and divorce should be illegal?

    San Francisco

  • Frida

    Bigotry and discrimination spun as being “pro-child” and “pro-family”. How is denying queer folks the legal rights of marriage not discriminatory? Marriage does not equal man/woman and also does not necessarily mean having children. Just more anti-gay hatred hiding behind religion.

    • TrainedHistorian

      Is denying a man the right to more than one wife “discriminatory.” Civil unions take care of the legal discriminations gay couples face in some states. But there are many problems with insisting that the right to call your union a  “marriage” is a constitutional right on a par with voting or jury service.  Legalizing polygamy causes all sorts of social problems, like a very skewed marriage market. It exacerbates inequalities between men & women, partly because polygamy can only work on a large scale if men marry wives much younger than themselves.(This has to do with the shape of population pyramid: there are usually more young than old people). And the unmarried and monogamists would have to subsidize polygamy because each spouse could claim Social Security benefits, and the tax breaks married couples get in inheritance. 

  • Terrifitz

    Good questions, Dave. This guy sounds exactly like the obedient servant of the Pope he is being paid to be, like the Bishops who covered up for child molester priests, do as you are told and keep the blinders on. He demonstrates the homophobic, sexist viewpoint of the Catholic church perfectly. Pelosi being excommunicated is news, though.

  • Richard Dugan


    . Do you support the dictate of the Church that Priests can not
    marry even though there is not a shred of evidence that was ever a part of the
    biblical teachings?

  • Richard Dugan


    . Do you support the dictate of the Church that Priests can not
    marry even though there is not a shred of evidence that was ever a part of the
    biblical teachings?

    •  what’s the difference.. you don’t like the bible anyhow.

  • Peet Cocke

    I feel so sad about this, there are so many inconsistencies and hypocrisies in the Archbishop’s views which reveal one of the truths of what the catholic church is and always has been, a method of power and control for the few, of the many. Preying on fear and hatred cloaked in the guise of spirituality and love.

  • Michelle

    Wow!! Dave Iverson is really twisting what the Archbishop is saying.  He is either not listening or trying mislead listeners about what the interviewee is saying.

  • Patty

    My friends, a health professional and faculty member and her philosopher (PhD) husband and former seminarian, both devout Roman Catholics in their 60’s, are married.  So far as I know, they do not plan to have children.  Is this not a marriage in the eyes of the church?

    •  either they are not as devout as you say, or are open to life should they get pregnant.

  • Every reason Archbishop Cordileone cited in support of immigrant rights is a reason I support same-sex marriage. Then there is the blessing of our almost-24-year (different-sex, BTW) marriage and the wonderful experience of being married in the Episcopal church and worshipping together regularly ever since.
    Why shouldn’t we as a couple and as a church share those wonderful blessings with same-sex couples who want the same commitment in their lives that we do in ours?But the Archbishop’s arguments in favor of “traditional” marriage leave us out in the cold, as we are a childless couple. I doubt that he would call our marriage invalid if we spoke to him in private, but his public pronouncements DO leave us–and many couples like us–out of his narrow and narrow-minded definition of a “real” marriage.We also know many same-sex couples–some who are parents–who are just as loving and committed as we are to God and to our church community. We see no threat whatsoever to sharing more of Christ’s love with and through these same-sex couples, and have literally danced at their weddings at our church, something that I fully believe Jesus has blessed and sanctioned by loving all of us. 

    I pray that Archbishop Cordileone–and all of his brothers in the Roman Catholic hierarchy–will see the light and abandon their rigid self-justifications
    about same-sex marriage. (And we won’t even go into the long-protected and officially sanctioned abuse of young children by RC priests and brothers, which has ruined the “human dignity” of thousands if not millions of lives.)

    •  Ha! good sneak in with the abuse.. now go research Anglican, Episcopalian, and protestant abusers – and how they were well sanctioned and go on to this day. 

      • Rhet

        Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

        •  no. Two wrongs make two wrongs.  The bishops are wrong for covering up. The nuns are wrong for covering up.  You are wrong for bashing Catholicism.

          • Rhet

            Prove your tin god exists.

  • Joe

    When i was in grade school I was taught that we live in a SECULAR state. 

  • Andy

    The church often seems incapable of working in the realities of the world.  When you ask a priest or a bishop a question, you get a rule instead of an answer.  Often you get examples that deal in the abstract and ideals, rather than the world as it exists.

    I find the Bishop’s answers very frustrating.  They sounds far more legal than pastoral.  He’s been criticized for having sharp elbows, and I’d like to know how he reacts to that.  

  • Rob

    A week-old embryo is less sentient and less worthy of protection than a fully sentient lizard, as far as I am concerned. There are a lot of times when the church shows less compassion for the adult mother and their family than for the little blob that is nothing but a few cells with no viability.

  • Curious

    I’m not sure how to post questions. Hopefully, my comments could somehow be viewed:

     Here are a couple:1) Archbishop, you mentioned that science determines where life begins — and named it as during fertilization. The morning after pill was determined by science to act *before* fertilization. There won’t be an “innocent death”. How do you feel about the morning after pill?2) You keep repeating that marriage is between a man and a woman to therefore be a mother and father. Well, what exactly determines being a man and being a woman? There are genetic diseases where instead of an XX and XY chromosome, there are people who, through a problem during fertilization, become XO (just one X chromosome), XXY, or even XXXY. What are they considered as? How do they fit into the normalcy idea of marriage, and are they allowed to marry at all?

  • Lebb74

    Does the bishop think that there are some people that lack or lose their innate dignity? He talks about “innocent” life and not all people to justify the respect of their dignity. 

  • Jme

    Ugh – I’m listening now – what a tool. He’s why religions hurt people. Life is about change and people who dig their heals in and follow ‘doctrine’ are dead and have no generosity of spirit. He’s why I left this church 30 years ago and never went back.

  • Brennan_bp

    A massive problem on the marriage issue is that “marriage” has meaning well beyond a civil compact.  Does the government need to be involved in “marriage” at all?  Let everyone have civil unions, and let religious organizations sanctions marriage as they feel are appropriate. 

  • Aaron

    “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

  • BrandySpears

    How does it feel to place unpopular families in CA up for a popular vote? You have taken a vow against marriage and forming a family. Do you really think you are an expert on marriage and family?

  • Richard Dugan

    The purpose of marriage is to allow two people to have a lasting relationship and provide the best context for children to thrive in. That is true and two lesbians and two gay men can provide just as good context for children to thrive in as a man and a woman. All other statements are the words of bigots and homophobes and I submit that this man is a huge homophobe which is most likely a reflection of the fact that he is gay and is now striking out at gays to try and prove to himself that he is not.

    •  bababhaha.. armchair psychologists, are we?

    • TrainedHistorian

      Many societies do not think marriage needs to be between two people , nor that they need have a “lasting relationship” particularly if one party fails in some way. (Islamic law allowed males extremely easy unilateral divorce. Confucian societies allow men to take more than one wife or to divorce a woman, paticularly if sh had not provided a son). Should polygamy be subsidized too, like heterosexual monogamous marriage, because it matches some people’s definition of a marriage?

  • HomerTh

    So what is it like to be a closet case?

  • Chemist150

    While I don’t care if gays or anyone else marry or have kids I have a problem with the “defense of marriage” in context of on prop 8.  The spirit of the constitution was to ensure rights of citizens or to limit or define government roles.  Prop 8 did the exact opposite and violated the spirit of constitutions by targeting a segment of the population and said it’s only OK for a certain segment of citizenry.  In my mind this violated the 14th amendment of the US constitution.  A law is one thing but do not violate the spirit and purpose of the constitution.  It’s your right to be a bigot but don’t make it constitutional.

  • lolly caust

    priests started abusing kids in the 1960s?

    ireland: tens of thousands of children from the 1940s to the 1990s

    canada: Father Charles Henry Sylvestre, of Belle River Ontario pled guilty to
    47 counts of sexual abuse on females, aged between nine and fourteen
    years old between 1952 and 1989

    united states: Although bishops had been sending sexually abusive priests to facilities such as those operated by the Servants of the Paraclete since the 1950s, there was scant public discussion of the problem until the mid-1960s.

    i hate it when people make stuff uo

    see sources at

  • mjmckay

    In addition to the role of “questioning”, please ask the ArchBishop Elect about the primacy of conscience for the individual when examining Church teaching.  He has stated that faithful dissenters mostly need to better understand the teaching of his brother bishops, but he hasn’t seemed to admit any room for doubt in the positions of those brother bishops. What do we do with this plea for proper understanding when when there are many issues on which the Bishops have later had to admit they were wrong (Galileo, evolution, modernity, the subordination of ecclesiastical authority to civil authority, democracy)?

    •  “well-formed conscience” not ill-formed conscience

  • kd

    the natural law is to LOVE. if you can’t understand that then perhaps you’re in the wrong job!

  • Peter Mandell

    What is the archbishops references in science, since he seems to be an expert on scientiific definitions. So much of what he claims are rationalizations and excuses hidden behind the veil of the church. I fear San Francsico is being serviced by Rome, a good servant who prays pays and obeys. All the rest is based in religion tradition. Here we go again. The flock is getting hosed again.

  • The Archbishop is incorrect on two points:
    1. You can read his transcript and see that he did INDEED say the church does not get involved in politics. 
    2.  The precise ruling for Rowe vs. Wade was that the legal and scientific community had NOT decided where life begins, and the ruling could be revisited if science and law could identify that point.  The scientific definition of when life begins has not moved backward.

    • Richard Dugan

       The unfortunate reality is that the Catholic Church was the result of a political decision by Roman Emperors so they could use it to remain in power. The Roman citizens were refusing to accept the old religion that proclaimed the Emperor was a God. So the Emperors created a church that would declare that a “spiritual God who was in close touch with a Pope could declare that the Emperors were approved by that spiritual God and had a Divine Right to have absolute rule over the people. That marriage of convenience has been in effect for the Catholic Church ever since as we have seen them condone and praise  such beasts as Hitler and others. Today they are still very political as they try to fool people into voting for Republicans because the Republicans will help them remain more powerful and extend their reach into public education and other recruiting outlets.

      •  baahahaaa… what about the Catholic Church in China, or India, or etc.?

        • Rhet

          The disease of religion has spread worldwide.

          •  And you are the mighty few who claim immunity.. how very elite you are.. we should be lucky enough to bow to your high mindedness..  no gods or goddesses, except the mind we should all worship — conveniently.. yours.

          • Fred

             It’s very easy to reject religion. Entire nations of people do it… in Europe and Asia.
            Even peasants can think for themselves, if their masters don’t prevent them, or kill them for doing it.

        • Miguel Moreno

          For the longest time the Church in the USA was lock-step with the Democrats because of their espoused commitment to the poor–an important part of Catholic teaching. However, over the past 2 decades or so the DNC is so Pro-Abortion that we who are concerned with the unborn cannot rely on the Democrats anymore. Good schools, healthcare and civil rights are contigent upon not getting sucked out in the first trimester or “tweezered-out” in the 2nd or 3rd. You must first survive the womb before you can enjoy the benefits of these material goods.
          Miguel Moreno, San Jose, CA

      • TrainedHistorian

        “So the Emperors created a church that would declare that a “spiritual God who was in close touch with a Pope could declare that the Emperors were approved by that spiritual God and had a Divine Right to have absolute rule over the people.”

        Nonsense. The “Pope” aka the bishop of Rome certainly did NOT have that sort of relationship with the Christian Roman emperors in the late antique period either in the West or the East. Nor did the “Pope,” aka the bishop of Rome, have more political or even ecclesiastical power than other patriarchates (Constantinople, or–before the Muslim conquests–Alexandria or Antioch) in late antiquity. Note that none of the 7 ecumenicals councils recognized by both the Eastern Orthodox & Western Catholic churches (AD 325-787 ) were organized by the “Pope” aka the bishop of Rome, but rather by the Emperors living in the East. (Rome did have a certain intangible holy prestige as the site of Peter & Paul’s deaths that Constantinople, Alexandria & Antioch could not claim). Not even the Eastern churches used terms like “divine right to have absolute rule over the people.” You seem to be projecting early modern European political terms onto a period you obviously know very little about: late antique/early medieval.

        “we have seen them condone and praise such beasts as Hitler…”

        Extremely simplistic. Pope Pius the Eleventh and other some other R.C. clerics did criticize Hitler’s race ideology & other aspects of Nazism, although many today in the safety of their own armchairs, would say the criticisms were not strong enough.

    • Miguel Moreno

      Dear Patty,
      1) Neither Archbishop Cordileone nor any other clergy member is running for office. Every American, including bishops and lay persons, have the right to speak up on issues–especially the life and death through “choice” of abortion. We have a right to mobilize to make the world a better place.
      2) The improvement of imagery in the womb over the past 40 years makes it OBVIOUS “who is inside.” Every science book in the 80’s was clear that life began when ovum and sperm cell met and made new DNA. All the new “redefinitions” are to try to dehumanize the zygote even further.
      Miguel Moreno, San Jose, CA

  • Lizbitmail

     So sad to hear the Archbishop focus on abortion and gay marriage, rather than taken care of those who are in need (as Jesus did).  What do they do to help pregnant women, homeless children, children in foster care, etc.

    I hope that the work of the American Sisters and their push back is helpful in changing the priorities of the church and their true mission as illustrated in the early church . 

    •  So Jesus was cool with abortion and gay marriage?

      • Fred

        Jesus was cool with prostitutes and other ostracized people.

        •  and?  He didn’t tell them to keep on keepin on.

  • mjmckay

    “the liturgy is replete with nuptial imagery”  and yet the Church wasn’t involved in marriage until the 11th century…

    •  Not historically accurate.
      Beginning already in the first centuries A.D., Christians began to
      think of marriages as instituted by a formal act blessed by the Church
      (Stevenson, 1983).

      • Gary

        History barely records what Christians thought during that period. They were still inventing the facts on the ground, and stealing ideas from other religions.

        •  i see.  Then how do you what they claim for themselves isn’t true?

        • TrainedHistorian

          Completely false.
          There are an ENORMOUS number of extant texts written by Catholic Christians, mainly in Latin & Greek, written before the eleventh century. Many of these that refer to marriage and reveal what Christians (mainly elites) thought about marriage. These are exactly what we historians of the late antique and medieval period study in order to construct a history of this period in general, and the history of late antique & medieval Christian thought in particular. There are so many Christian texts from this period, that no one, even those of us with a doctorate specializing in this period, could read them all. Just take a look at how many volumes of the Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca there are covering the period from the last New Testament books, c. 100 AD to the eleventh century. Then take a look at the number of volumes (still being issued) of late antique &  medieval texts in the Monumenta Historiae Germaniae.

      • SarahS

         You are wrong. Read your church history. What you say simply is not true.

        • TrainedHistorian

          No, what you say is not true & mjmckay is also wrong. 
          There are an enormous number of texts written before the eleventh century that reveal that Catholic authorities were involved in marriage: trying (though not always successfully) to limit unilateral divorce (which was legal in the late Roman Empire & practiced by many pre-Christian Germanic tribes), discourage adultery by requiring penance for it even from males (the Roman state rarely punished adultery by married males against their wives, but was severe on female adultery), etc. In addition to patristic texts, there are the canons of many, many church councils & penitentials from the period, which reveal penances the church imposed on people who committed adultery, unilateral divorce, polygyny (which was practiced by many of the pre-Christian Germanic tribes) or other violations of Catholic marriage norms, as well as several canon law collections. 
          What was new in the eleventh century wasthe Western church (what would become the Roman Catholic church) attempting to impose celibacy on all clerics, even lowly parish priests. Earlier celibacy was only required of monks & patriarchs/archbishops) but not all priests. Even now, the Eastern churches follow the older tradition of allowing low-level priests (as opposed to archbishops & monks) to marry. 


    I applaud Dave Iverson’s efforts to interview the Archbishop, as maintaining a respectful demeanor is getting almost absurd at this point in the interview. When he suggested all pro-choice Carholics should stop receiving communion, I thought it an amusing mis-step. When he explained rampant pedophilia in church as being part of the 1960s cultural changes, I was shocked. He seems to confuse sexual freedom among adults with pedophilia. It all made sense, though, when he clearly stated that priests preying upon adolescents does not count aa pedophilia. My perception of the Church as an international ring of pediphiles has been confirmed.

    •  You’re viewing it as a game of politics. He is not.  The mis-step is yours for mis-perceiving.

      • Tom Ames

        I agree, it should not be seen as a game of politics. It is rather an issue for law enforcement.

        The Penn State administrators involved in the Sandusky coverup were amateurs in comparison to the bishops’ criminal conspiracy. How much longer do we give a free pass to the enablers of sexual predators, just because they profess to be pious?

        •  Who are you to determine?  The corrupt police? The corrupt legislature? The corrupt court?

          • Fred

             Spoken like a true criminal.

      • Greg

        The church’s alliances with numerous fascist governments shows their political inclinations. He can pretend that he is not acting politically, but when he constantly connects himself with major political issues of the day, he appears very ridiculous. That, on top of the fact that his political stances are bunk.

        •  So you prefer that he just says nothing ever? I see, that’s how free religion is practiced in your totalitarian regime.

          • Greg

             The enemies of democracy inherently deserve fewer rights in a democracy. The Catholic church is a proven enemy of democracy in country after country after country.

          • Benedictineacc

             Tell that to the people of Poland, or any Soviet Bloc regime’s people, who were upheld by the Catholic Church’s stance on the rights of humanity.

          • TrainedHistorian

            And just which rights are you proposing that Catholics should be deprived of?And Who determines who is an enemy of democracy? Would you curb the fundamental rights of unpopular groups on the grounds that they are “enemies of the Republic” as  the so-called “republicans” implementing the Reign of Terror did?. Catholic Church in the US & most democracies supports freedom of speech & free elections. I don’t see that it is an enemy of democracy here, since it upholds both these & other fundamental rights, even though I disagree with it on many, many issues.

        • TrainedHistorian

          “church’s alliance with numerous fascist governments….inclinations” This is an ad hominem argument. It’s fallacious, even if it were true.  You need to concentrate on what the speaker is saying:  guilt by association is not good logic. And the Roman Catholic Church’s relationships with so-called “fascist” governments is far more complex than you make it out to be. To keep it simple, as pointed out below, the Roman Catholic Church was no supporter of totalitarian or authoritarian Communist regimes. 

    • dore15

      Yeah wow…  Just wow.  I was stunned when I first heard him blame the church’s pedophilia on the 60’s counter culture, and then claim it’s not pedophilia because they were adolescents.  This guy does not deserve any position of power, and appears ripe to ignore and allow criminal behavior. This is either total denial on his part, or he’s a criminal himself, making excuses for his own behavior.

      • Yourbrotherinchrist

        I listened the same program you did and he didn’t blame he related the issue which is different.

        • dore15

          No he back tracked his statements after he was called out on it. But that was clearly an attempt to suggest that it was the counter cultures fault the church had it’s weakness. That clearly puts the blame on the counter culture. It’s excuses for crimal behavior and cover ups.

      • Benedictineacc

         Dore, adolescents make it ephebophilia, not pedophilia. This is a gay-oriented deviancy (though DEFINITELY NOT all gay men are this, of course), in which these certain priests of that orientation went after young men who were just entering puberty. I witnessed this myself during my teen years (the priest who abused me was defrocked by Pope Benedict) and also when I was in the seminary (I left in disgust over it). 

        • dore15

          “This is a gay-oriented deviancy”

          You are deeply biased and confused.

          • Bill

             Most homophobes are simply latent homosexuals.

    • Kelli Wiseth

      Jennifer, I like your comments…  I was listening in the car, stopped to do an errand, and when I
      returned, I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard this man writing-off
      all the pedophile priests as having been “part of the 60s” or whatever
      the Eff he said. If this perspective alone doesn’t
      underscore the perverse logic and hypocrisy of this evil institution, I
      don’t know what does.

      • TrainedHistorian

         The problem here is jumping from your reasonable disagreements with this particular archbishop to the characterization of the Roman Catholic Church as whole to an “evil institution.” And would you claim that Islam is an “evil religion” because many Muslim religious leaders (past & present) condone child marriage (which is a form of child sexual abuse) or violence against people who live under non-Muslim regimes?

    • TrainedHistorian

      The problem here is jumping from the reasonable disagreements that you have with this Archbishop on many important issues to characterizing the Roman Catholic Church as an “international ring of pedophiles.” You can find all sorts of Muslim religious personnel condoning child sexual abuse too, in marriage. (Under many interpretations of Islamic law, sexual relations in marriage to a wife as young as nine was accepted; underage marriage is still accepted in many predominantly Muslim societies partly because of just justifications from religious authority). Many past and present Muslim religious leaders condoning violence against Western peoples.  Would you state that this confims your perception of Islam as an “international ring of pedophile” thugs? I suspect you would be a little more careful about gross overgeneraliziations based on some individuals.

      • Jackiem8383

        You’re right, all the Abrahamists are aweful.  

  • billm

    I love many of the the good works the Church does here and all over the world  My kid goes to a great preschool founded by the Church (and run by nuns). That said, I find this guy to be one of creepiest interviewes I have heard in some time. Is this what the Vatican is putting out there to represent them and run things? Supposedly there are a half-million Catholics in SF, Marin, and the East Bay. I think that number is going to be a lot smaller with this guy in charge.  He does a terrible job communicating the conflict-laden, complex views the Vatican wants out there, and will indeed purify the flock, and make them increasingly isolated, shepherding the meek and the ignorant. 

  • Mark

    Thanks, Dave, for voicing the questions on many of our minds in a reasonable but firm way. It was a very illuminating discussion.  

  • Comparing apples to cornflakes.  Why can’t any organization be supportive of both?

  • ian

    If the church declares marriage is between a man and a woman would the church approve of marriage between a sexually reassigned man or woman and his or her partner? would the church support such procedures for their members to stay in line with the church’s doctrine? Would catholic hospitals offer such procedures?

  • Jeff

    There is a “inherent biological DISABILITY in the sexual intercourse of homosexuals”.  The sexual intercourse of heterosexuals, have a biological ability.  

    • Gary

       Catholic priests sure have an ability all right… to bugger children.

      •  as do schoolteachers, coaches, many males, and even some females – let’s wipe them all out.

  • Lizbitmail

    Michelle — I disagree with you.  Anyone who has worked with children with an abusive parent, an addicted parent, etc. would tell you that being in a safe loving home has been a godsend after enduring the terror of intimidation, fear and danger they have had to endure from their biological parents.  It makes me sad when I hear people making generalizations based upon personal experience.  If you really care, go and work with these children and help them find a safe place to belong. That is the true calling of the church…

    • Michelle

      I do work with children!  You are misrepresenting what was said.  No one is suggesting children with abusive biological parents should not be helped.  It’s important to actually read what people write. 🙂

  • Rhea

    I found this interview somewhat horrifying on various levels. Particularly, the Archbishop’s comment that “technically” the molestation by Priests wasn’t all pedophilia, that some of those molested were adolescents. Please…..And, regardless, aren’t Priests suppose to be celibate? Then aren’t they, in any case, breaking one of the core “beliefs” of the Church? With the majority of comments the Archbishop made that I heard, I would have believed that the expectation is for people to live in the middle ages, not question and let the Church control their lives. Sorry, I can’t buy the Archbishop’s mythology…

    •  Do you live in a bubble?  Are you easily frightened?  If you answer no to either of these, don’t you think it’s a bit hyperbolic to describe this interview as “horrifying”?

      • Bill

         Go get yourself raped, and see how you like it, you vile dumbass.

  • RabbiCaudill

    My question to the new archbishop is this: Has the Church always held the same doctrine concerning same-sex marriage and abortion? AND, has the Church ever been guilty of taking “innocent” life? 

  • Pat Reardon

    One of our bloggers challenges: “Prove that your god exists.”

    What gives atheism the right to default position?

    • Guest

       If there was proof, then there would be no need for faith. If a God does exist that wants us to live by faith, then there can be no proof. Faith requires uncertainty.

  • Vquack

    All Catholic priests and bishops should get honest jobs!

  • $2870056

    The only child I know about who may have suffered from having two dads was jesus.  Only one of those dads caused suffering.  And they say the other dad, Joe, was a pretty good guy, though, he and Mary never had a child of their own.

  • I’d like to hear a discussion on how he’s using his religious rights to trample over -my- religious life. My faith -recognizes- gay rights to marry, as well as non-traditional family structure. His proposed legislation discriminates against me and my family. 

  • David Channer

    I am at a loss to
    understand this. Maybe someone can help me. The Archbishop seemed to be saying
    that the Catholic Church does not believe in marriage except as a part of
    serving God’s will for humans to procreate. This was the main argument he made
    against marriage equality. Does this mean that the Catholic Church is against
    the legal institution of marriage and only accepts religious marriages as
    valid? Does this mean that they do not believe that we should allow atheists to
    get married by a Justice of the Peace? Does this mean that couples who are not
    able to – or choose not to – have children should not be allowed to marry? He
    actually said “What is the social benefit [of a marriage that is not based
    on procreation]?” A belief in God or in gods is everyone’s right and if
    they want to get married in the eyes of that God or gods then great. But
    ultimately marriage is a legal institution. God was not invited to my wedding,
    yet I am legally married. My wife and I have two kids, but not to fulfill any
    God’s commandment. Furthermore, I have friends who have chosen not to have children,
    and they are married. By the Archbishop’s reasoning, these marriages (though
    legal) are no more legitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church than gay
    marriage is. If that is really how the Catholic Church views marriage, it
    really undermines the integrity of that religious institution and if he really
    speaks for his congregants, then it shifts my view of that institution into the
    “dangerous and hateful” category. It’s one thing to set criteria a Catholic
    marriage (and then let congregants decide whether they want to support a
    discriminatory and hateful depiction of God) but it is another thing for the church
    and its congregants to take a stand against an entirely separate institution
    (legal marriage) and condemn its legitimacy and validity… not to mention its
    morality. Shame on you, Archbishop. No God deserving of our reverence would
    support such views. And if there is a God who believes what you espouse then I
    officially state my opposition to that God and I will proudly bear His petty,
    adolescent wrath shielded by the courage of my convictions.

    • Colin

      There were a lot of statements that the Archibishop made that were simply outrageous.  I thought that his statement that victims of child rape should not have abortions to be quite frankly absurd, as well as offensive.

  • Listening

    Thank you KQED and Dave Iverson for this interview with the new archbishop. I wish him well as he explains the Church’s positions on difficult matters of public policy that affect us all. 

  • Chris Mattson

    God bless you Archbishop Cordileone.  We miss you in San Diego, and you are in our daily prayers.  San Franciscans are blessed indeed that the Pope in his wisdom and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit appointed you as their Archbishop.

  • First, I applaud the Host & Bishop for maintaining professional
    decorum enabling this conversation to take place.

    The sheer ignorance of Catholic position is mind boggling. If you are going to be condemning someone on the airwaves, it would be prudent to at least understand their position from an academic standpoint.

    The ‘Doctor’ who called in and downright insulted the Archbishop
    and Catholics is a zealot who should not have gotten past the screeners and
    destroyed the exchange of views. Reason being, its always assumed in any civil
    discussion of the good intention of the persons engaged in it. The man clearly
    had no good intentions.


    I am surprised that there was not a single sympathetic
    caller that got through, unusual even for the city of St. Francis.

    • Colin

      The caller was no more insulting than the Archbishop himself.  KQED did an excellent job of getting a wide range of callers in short period of time.  If it’s upsetting to you personally that the Bay Area doesn’t have more true believers who buy the Archbishop’s story that the 60’s caused priests to sexually abuse children & that Monsignor Lynn had been unfairly convicted of conspiracy and child endangerment charges, then go move somewhere else, like the Vatican City.

  • Simply put,

    Catholic understand of marriage is that of an institution established
    by God for man to pro-create. (he created them man and woman and gave them the
    first commandment -> be fruitful and multiply)

    Its in this context that the church has always understood
    the marital act

    Its for spouses to give themselves to each other and for it
    to be open to Gods plan, its got to always be used for what God intended it to
    be, open to Children, which is why the Church since the first Century has
    opposed contraceptives. Yes, contraceptives are older than the modern age..

    • TrainedHistorian

      It’s NOT clear Catholic Church has always opposed contraception. I’ve read all the Christian patristic writers of ante-Nicene period & I do not remember a single text referring to this.  Please tell me which early texts condemn contraception? Some texts do condemn abortion, like Athanagoras, Hippolytus (vs. the Heresies) & the Didache. But abortion is NOT the same as contraception.

  • yes, the bishop was correct on that, you simply do not solve one sin with another, be it murder for murder, or abortion for rape

  • Are you serious?

  • Did you notice that the Archbishop was not the host?

  • Jaime J

    My favorite part was when Mr. Iverson asked him to clarify his statement that supporting gay marriage is in direct conflict with supporting active participation by fathers in low income communities.  He was so befuddled by Mr. Iverson’s question, “so, to clarify, you’re saying that a gay father isn’t actually a father” that I laughed out loud as the Archbishop basically couldn’t connect the dots in his absurd statements.

  • Greg Slater

    This guy is one hopeless, hypocritical dude.  Pitiful human being.  I’d feel sorry for him if it weren’t for the fact that he and his fellow Catholic bosses weren’t responsible for so much needless suffering in the world.  Delusional, disingenuous, hypocritical fool….

  • Bill D.

    Very interesting interview.  Having been educated in Catholic schools for 12 years I learned some interesting Catholic doctrine that I had not learned before.  But it still reminds me of this quote:

    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mahatma Gandhi

    Luckily my Catholic schools, especially during high school, focused on social justice, not Catholic doctrine.  But you don’t get to become Archbishop without being a servant of the institutional doctrine.  Luckily not all Christians are not like the Archbishop.  Some actually have compassion of Christ.

    Because of views like the Archbishop, I no longer can consider myself Catholic.  Oh… and also because God Hates Shrimp (Leviticus 11:9-12).  Shrimp are tasty, tasty creatures… and I’m definitely a sinner!

  • Citizen320

    I tuned into this broadcast in my car, and honestly thought that Mr. Iverson was interviewing a Southern baptist anti-gay minister who was bringing his congregation to San Francisco for a demonstration. I admired Iverson’s restraint–very delicate–and as the show went on I realized, to my shock, that this guy was San Francisco’s new archbishop. Stunningly medieval and medievally inarticulate. And his equivocation about the harassment of the Catholic nuns, more than disturbing. When will these men understand that Catholic nuns are the ones sustaining the Catholic church, doing the true work of Christianity, that nuns outnumber priests manyfold, and that if this cabal of men alienates Catholic nuns and forces them from the church, the whole theological house of cards will fall. I am saddened by the primitive thinking not only of the current Catholic pope, but also of his sideman Levada, and now Salvatore Cordileone, who sadly is the new retrogressive face of Catholicism in San Francisco. (This spoken as a Catholic who once wanted to be a priest.)

  • Michael McDermott

    As a member of the Oakland Diocese, I have been very happy with the leadership, stewardship, and faithfulness  Bishop Cordileone has given us. He has a big challenge in his new assignment, as evidenced by the numerous hostile and morally confused posts on this thread.

    With respect to the importance of the diginty of the person, the Bishop is right. Workers deserve a livable wage, illegal immigrants deserve humane treatment.

    With respect to the importance of affirming traditional marriage, the Bishop is right. Kids deserve to have both a mother and a father in their lives. Gay marriage militates against that need, so just on that basis gay marriage is clearly a negative for children.   

    With respect to the importance of affirming life from womb to tomb, the Bishop is right. Killing a baby in the womb or killing an elderly person in frail health is wrong, wrong, wrong. 

    • Jaime J

      I completely support individuals and even organized religions having *beliefs*and *feelings* about the morality of gay marriage and gay people raising children. You and your Archbishop can believe that kids “deserve” to have a mother and a father in their lives. Everyone can have their own opinions and even if I disagree, I totally support people’s rights to feel the way the feel. We start to have a problem when those people and those institutions start making policy decisions and funnel huge amounts of money into the policy making process based on those individual feelings. Decisions that will have no impact on your life but impact mine. There is really no validated, scientific data to show that not having both a male and female parent in the home has a negative impact on children.  Yes, data shows that single mothers are more likely to struggle financially, but gay marriage has nothing to do with that. The men who aren’t staying with the women they had children with are not all running off to get married to other men. It’s a strawman argument. Gay marriage isn’t bad for children just like homosexuality itself is not harmful. It’s homophobia and what what homophobic people do and say to gay parents and children who have gay parents that is clearly a negative for children. Do you actually know any happy, healthy gay families? If not, I invite you to meet mine. Here is a short documentary about us and here is a blog about our experiences raising a child with severe medical issues ( I honestly and openheartedly invite you to watch the film and read our blog and then have a real conversation with me about how me being married to my wife is detrimental to our son. I wish that people who did not like gay people and don’t like the idea of gay marriage would just come out and say plainly, “I just don’t like it” instead of hiding behind scraps of scripture and straw man arguments like the one the Archbishop made about gay marriage somehow being linked to low levels of father involvement and consequently poverty. It’s absurd.

      • Jaime,

        The United Nations agrees with the Bishop.  The UN Charter of the Rights of Children passed in 1990 (and approved by the USA) says it clearly:

        Article 7The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

  • Roseanne Sullivan

    What the bishop did not mention was that the psychiatric establishment had a big input into the decisions of the bishops on how to handle priests who abused.  At that time psychologists believed and told the bishops that abusers could be cured.  Not only that, based on Kinsey’s bogus studies, psychologists were writing articles saying that adult/child sex “love” was actually good for a child. This put anyone who wanted to be considered intelligent a bit off guard, not wanting to disagree with the psychiatric establishment for fear of seeming ignorant.  On psychologists’ advice, priests were sent to treatment centers, where instead of being encouraged to keep their thoughts and actions chaste, the priests were encouraged to let their feelings out.  After “treatment,” priests were returned to their dioceses and reassigned to parishes. I believe that the fault of the sincere bishops is perhaps a mixture of gullibility and a desire to not seem out of date; they believed the psychologists instead of realizing the enormous perversion that was practiced by the priests.  

    • Paul F.

      Oh, pity the poor bishops!  How could they possibly have known that molestation is harmful to children or that conspiring to conceal criminal behavior is wrong?

  • Star

    Most priests are good people doing the will of God by giving his people the seven sacraments.  Just because a few are really bad there’s no need to paint the whole Catholic Church as evil.  It is the Church Jesus founded and even at its founding, human nature and sin confused its most staunch advocate, Peter, who was the first Pope.  As some of you people seem to think that the Church is evil, please explain why it is still here going strong.  Please don’t think it’s the hierarchy; the kingdoms of Europe had hierarchy and where are they now? 

    The Catholic Church has not changed its faith and morals teachings in almost 2,000 years; yes, there’s rotten apples in the bunch, but Jesus said he’d send the Holy Spirit to be with the Church through time.  The Catholic Church has had many holy men and women over the centuries who’ve promoted hospital, schools, medical research, scientific inquiry, and inquisitiveness into the nature of nature along with the scientists who denied God even when the evidence of His existence is stared them right in the face in the mirror. 

    God drives evolution even if we find the evidence that he invested in making us only during the beginning of the universe–whenever that was.  God is eternal and his Church’s view of the world is eternal and will never change.  Birth control, homosexuality and lesbianism is wrong because it does not give God the opportunity to make children.  The rabbis before Jesus taught that having sex, making love, was a covenant with God that He may make a child.  God has never rescinded that covenant so people are slapping God in the face with their shoes when having sex that will not allow him to make a child.  Our sexual organs belong to God so he can make children. 

    Scientific research, real research, into how many people the earth (Terra) can support shows that comfortable living can still be achieved with 90 billion people.  Of course, it’s against liberal policy to report this.

    • mike nola

       because the devil is in charge of the Catholic Church

  • mike nola

    Codileone has a concept he expressed here, that biology is what makes a father. He has just insulted every adoptive parent and step parent in the nation.

    Fatherhood, and Motherhood, have zero to do with biology. Dogs can breed, mosquitoes can breed, fish can breed, that does not make them parents.

    Being a Father or Mother takes more than simple biology and insulting and abusing people of good character makes him a very petty ideologue that has no business in a leadership position, that is anywhere except the Devil Run Catholic Church.

    • Jaime J

      Amen.  Biological relationship does not equal parenthood, nor does present father equal healthier kids.  Talk to all the people traumatized by jackhole Dads.

    • Mike,
      Fortunately the civilized world disagrees with your twisted view of parenthood.   In 1990 the UN passed the Convention on the Rights of Children, approved by member nations, including the USA.  It affirms the following basic right of all children:

      Article 7The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

  • Lorraine Bader

    I would like to commend Dave Iverson for his respectful and sensitive hosting of this show.  I was losing patience with the archbishop as I listened to his rationalizing and justifying.  The previous comments said it very well.  

  • Beth Grant DeRoos

    Interesting that the church doesn’t allow Catholic priests to marry but welcomes Episcopal priests who convert to the Catholic faith and bring their priesthood to the church.

  • Guest

    Overall, I find the treatment here of the Archbishop to be quite disrespectful. Yes, his views are different from many here, but is this an appropriate way to welcome someone new into your community? Listen to the callers, read through the comments here, and then remind me; which side is the intolerant one?

  • drea916

    I wish people would be more open minded. The hysteria of the callers is funny and sad. The caller that questioned IVF. Where has she been? The church is against that as well. The pill doesn’t always prevent ovulation, that is why there are two other ways that it functions. The Church is consistent. The flaw of the Church is that she has not catecised her children in the last 40 years. Young catholics, such as myself, as passionately in line with the Church. Her teachings are beautiful. Sexual liberation has enslaved women- I’ve been there and done that. I’m thrilled that SF now has a good shepard.

  • Colin

    The purpose of the program was not to welcome the Archbishop into our community.  The Archbishop was looking for a forum to promote his views.  He was foolish if he thought there would not be some questioning of those views by many callers.  He represents a church which is trying to dictate social policy for all Americans, not just Catholics.  All the while his organization is granted tax-exempt status by our government even though it lobbies furiously against same-sex marriage, abortion rights and contraception.  He is not entitled to any more respect than any other politician or public figure who appears on Forum.  None of the callers had used any obscenities or attacked the man personally.  I fail to see how his treatment had been “disrespectful”.

  • repple

    This is the Archbishop’s argument in a syllogistic nut shell:
    “a. Male and female are required for procreationb. Marriage requires procreation, thereforec. Marriage requires male and female.However the syllogism follows only if (b) is accepted as true. However, in fact its contrary is true. As it stands (b) is not acceptable to most states or faiths — any more than same-sex marriage is acceptable to most states and faiths. So those who frame the argument in this way are employing a premise they do not in fact accept to reach a conclusion they desire.”- (Thanks to Father Tobias Haller)No catholic need accept such fallacious reasoning as good theology let alone good public policy.Likewise the Archbishop’s depiction of adoption is equally flawed, It is here where one encounters grace in the reality confronting the mythic ideal. In his disregard for the thousands of adopted children of same sex couples, he shows little understanding of his own Church’s  theology of redemption wherein with Christ we all become the adopted children of God.

  • Tom Martine

    posted as Tom Martine

  • Tom Martine

    Two things: A bit of a rant here…sorry, but when a button is pushed…
    1) As a “recovering Catholic” I now view ALL organized religion as suspect for once they become powerful, like most other human/man-made institutions, they become corrupt.
    2) And it’s BETTER to have a child born into a family (no matter what it’s make up – so what if it takes a man and woman to “make a baby” – that is NO GUARANTEE they’ll make better parents) that isn’t prepared to care for him/her, and in turn end up living a life of abuse, terror and pain, or put into the foster system and “float” for years with little to no support – than it is to terminate the pregnancy at the beginning. Where is the Archbishop and the church when it comes to caring for all these “unwanted” or abandoned children? What does the church do to stem this kind of evil? What kind of future are we forced to inherit when a child is abused. Isn’t THAT a greater sin???

  • Stephen Matlaga

    To the catacombs, if we must!

  • Jackiem8383

    I didn’t hear the program live so I couldn’t call in.  But if I could have, I would have asked the Archbishop if he knows of any institution in the history of mankind that has caused more misery and suffering than the Catholic Church, because I can’t think of any.  He is a horrible person, who speaks for a horrible organization.

    • Guest

       A horrible person? How long have you known him?

    • TrainedHistorian

      How about the millions killed by the Soviet government? Or the Nazi government? Or the Maoist regime? Or the Pol Pot regime? Or the late Ottoman Empire (1915-1922) who caused the Armenian genocide? Your grasp of history is rather shallow if you think that the Catholic Church has caused the most misery and suffering in the history of mankind.

  • Wagnerian_thrice

    As a child of gay parents, all I can say is What a pig!

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor