Abp. Niederauer makes a second bad decision (and here's why)

Update (Oct 12th): Abp. Niederauer has issued a public apology. You can read it here.

I regret having to do this, but I think it must be done....

LifeSiteNews contacted the office of Archbishop George Niederauer to give him a chance to explain or respond to the recent accusations leveled against him:

A statement by Archbishop Niederauer sent to LifeSiteNews.com by Archdiocesan communications director Maurice Healy says that the Archbishop did not notice any "mock religious garb."

Here is what the Niederauer sent back:

"At Most Holy Redeemer Church Oct. 7, I noticed no protest, no demonstration, no disruption of the Sunday Eucharist," said Archbishop Nierderauer. "The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland."

The Archbishop has chosen to a) deny that he did anything wrong and even b) misses an opportunity to promise that, if faced with a similar situation, he would not do it again.

His statement, furthermore, seems illogical, indefensible and incoherent for these reasons:

• On the one hand, he claims to be aware enough of his surroundings to conclude that the entire celebration was conducted with reverence and devoutly, but at the same time he could not tell that two transvestites were staring him in the face one-after-the-other during communion time.
• He vaguely refers to these two transvestites as "strangely dressed persons." This is coming, mind you, from a man who ministers in San Francisco. Is he honestly trying to claim that he does not recognize what are clearly transvestite individuals? What does that say about his ability to minister? They have white chalk on their faces. They are wearing red lipstick. They were wearing heals. "Strangely dressed persons" is an untenable euphemism. Moreover, he is celebrating Mass at a well-known gay-friendly parish! Shouldn't he, so to speak, be more on his guard against this sort of thing?
• "I did not see any mock religious garb." This, again, coming from an Archbishop of the Catholic Church. Large black veils are not worn by the general populace. Shouldn't he admit at the very least that, given everything else he "missed" about these persons, they might also have been wearing religious garb?
• "As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland." Again, this apparently was no cause for concern - judging by the Archbishop's tone. Such nonchalance when administering the Body and Bloody of Jesus Christ is alone reprehensible. Where, exactly, is his mind at when he is administering the Eucharist that he only "vaguely" remembers a "flowered hat or garland" but can't remember lipstick, white-chalk faces, rainbow headdresses, men wearing skirts and high heels, mascara ... etc.!

And then, finally, there is the fact that the video further contradicts the Archbishop's explanation of the situation. If you watch it closely (as I have many times, and you can too), I think it is pretty clear that this is what happened. I've embedded the video below and then written up a timeline of what it shows actually happening in bulleted form with comments interspersed:




My play-by-play:

• The first transvestite presents himself for communion
• Instead of presenting communion, Niederauer stops and extends his hand and gives the transvestite a blessing

If there was nothing memorable about the transvestite, why didn't Niederauer simply give him communion? I think it is clear that Niederauer noticed something was different and initially chose to withhold communion and chose instead to give a blessing.

• At a crucial point, the camera view is obstructed by a passer-by, in the meantime, Neiderauer voices something to the transvestite, who nods, and Niederauer then gives him communion.

We can only speculate what was said (there is a rumor that another video of the event will be made available shortly). I don't think it's far off to guess that Niederauer asked the transvestite if he wanted communion, and he said yes. But, this we cannot know for certain. [Note: I also considered the possibility that the transvestite told Niderauer that he had been to confession. If that happened - and I doubt it - Niederauer should have said "Okay, now please come back when you are not so offensively dressed."] Either way, however, the Archbishop talked to the man! Is his memory so failing that he cannot remember having a conversation with a communicant? Can he talk to someone with a face like this and have no memory of something being ... "off"?!

• What is visible, however, is that Niederauer follows the transvestite as he walks away with his eyes. At the same time, his mouth is open in a state of either shock of confusion.

Again, if nothing about this transvestite was memorable, why follow him with your eyes? I think in the Archbishop's best defense, his expression would seem to suggest that he was taken aback by the situation, and failed to think quickly on his feet. If that is the case, however, he should discard the pretense and admit candidly that he was taken off-guard.

• Now the second transvestite approaches. This time there is no question and Neiderauer immediately gives him communion. Once again, however, Niederauer shoots a quick glance at the second transvestite with his eyes.

In my experience - and I'll admit that there are times when I'm in the front of church and watching the communion line while I pray - priests don't follow communicants with their eyes unless they are uneasy about whether the person is going to immediately consume the Host. Why did Niederauer look at not one, but both individuals if ... there was nothing unusual about them?

This entire sequence puts the lie to Abp. Niederauer's claim that the appearance of two transvestites in his communion line a) did not register in his mind as a reason to deny them communion and b) caused him no second-thoughts to the point that he has already forgotten what happened.

With all due humility to his office as an Archbishop of the Church, but equally inspired by a sincere concern that he dispense his office as the Guardian of the Sacraments properly ...

I don't think his response to LifeSiteNews is honest.

Update: CurtJester, with his distinctly withering style of irony, takes a look at the Abp.'s response. Also, Closed Cafeteria is a good place to find backstory on the blasphemous "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence".



Update 2: Thanks to everyone who has linked to this post. I've added an embedded youtube video to make it easier to see for yourself what I'm claiming.


Update 3: George Neumayr, editor of the American Spectator, has written a good editorial for Catholic World Report about this situation, and reminds us about the chance for resolution at the U.S. Bishop's upcoming meeting in November:

In November, the U.S. bishops will gather in Baltimore for their annual conference, and this unresolved scandal hangs over them. The choice they face is clear: either they adopt as a uniform policy the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will multiply without end.

...The Church's position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege is not up for debate. The only question left is whether the bishops will follow it. The fiasco in San Francisco makes this much clear: If the bishops don't get control over the sacraments, the Church's enemies most certainly will.

Here-here.