Double standards for gatherings in San Francisco a source of growing frustration

San Francisco, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone noted earlier this week, “is the only government in the entire Bay Area that restricts public gatherings to 12 people out of doors.”

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone celebrates the feast of the Assumption on the steps of the city's Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption Aug. 15, 2020. (CNS photo/Dennis Callahan, Archdiocese of San Francisco)

Earlier this week, the Most Rev. Salvatore Cordileone, Archbishop of San Francisco, released a statement calling on the city’s Mayor London Breed; Director of Public Health Dr. Grant Colfax; and San Francisco Health Officer Dr. Tomas Aragon to “ease unfair restrictions on public worship in San Francisco” and to, “at a minimum, remove the excessive limits on outdoor public worship.”

San Francisco, Archbishop Cordileone noted, “is the only government in the entire Bay Area that restricts public gatherings to 12 people out of doors. Ours and others’ faith is being treated as less important than a trip to the hardware store, or a nice dinner out on the patio.”

Archbishop Cordileone’s statement is his most recent attempt to bring attention to the inequitable treatment the City’s churches have received from a recalcitrant administration apparently intent on preventing churches and faith communities from gathering.  At the same time that churches in San Francisco are prevented from holding even outdoor gatherings of more than a dozen people, the City has been allowing indoor retail stores to operate at 50 percent capacity and outdoor patio dining. San Francisco County is now allowing restaurants to reopen at 25% of dining capacity (but cannot serve more than 100 indoor guests.)

And yet the City has encouraged unlimited attendance at organized local street protests. In fact, while churches are shuttered in San Francisco, there have been dozens of street protests populated by thousands of unmasked protesters. According to community websites, there are many more protests planned for the upcoming weeks.  On September 3rd, protestors were encouraged to March to Defund the SFPD at Mission High School. On Saturday, September 5th, there is the United Nationwide Protest to “Demand Trump Pence Out Now!” at Embarcadero Plaza from Noon to 2pm. And on Sunday, September 6th—the same day that Archbishop Cordileone will only be allowed to invite a dozen parishioners to attend an outdoor Mass—there will be a George Floyd Memorial Sunset Beach Stroll on San Francisco’s prettiest beach.

If Archbishop Cordileone attempted to offer Mass for more than twelve of his parishioners on that same Sunset Beach—alongside the hundreds of protestors—he would likely be arrested as the City has already shown itself to be willing to impose the most draconian demands on the Church.  In July, San Francisco’s City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent a “cease and desist” letter to Archbishop Cordileone when the Archbishop attempted to allow parishes to resume public indoor Masses in late June.  Claiming that religious services elsewhere have been linked to COVID-19 outbreaks such as one in Mendocino County, where a cluster of cases was linked to a May church service, Herrera delivered a stern warning to the Archbishop that if the Masses continued, the City would issue “a restraining order to protect your parishioners and the broader community.”

Despite the discriminatory treatment, the courts have provided little relief. While the Trump Administration has given strong support to religious freedom arguments brought by faith communities and their advocates, the courts have refused to help. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled twice in the past few months against churches that sought exemptions from statewide COVID restrictions on houses of worship during the pandemic. In each case, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the Court.

In Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, the Supreme Court ruled that Nevada had the right to limit church attendance to 50 people while at the same time allowing casinos, breweries, and gyms to operate at 50 percent capacity. Justice Gorsuch, in his dissenting remarks, quipped, “In Nevada, it seems, it is better to be in entertainment than religion” and then stated, “But the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion.”

In the California case, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion claiming that “although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment….” Roberts claimed that whatever restrictions the state of California placed on churches, “similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.”

In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that California’s occupancy cap on religious worship services “indisputably discriminates against religion, and such discrimination violates the First Amendment.” In the meantime, while the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi defies the draconian San Francisco laws on hair salons by getting her hair done in a “closed” San Francisco salon, San Francisco’s churches are held hostage to the secular animus of the City’s government.

Marginalizing the voices of San Francisco’s religious leaders has been quite convenient for the City’s lawmakers this week as the City was able to pass—without organized opposition from churches and faith groups—the controversial California Senate Bill 145.   Promoted by California state Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) with support from the LGBTQ “community”, the bill modifies the state penal code to allow certain individuals convicted of sex offenses involving minors to apply for discretionary relief from having to register as sex offenders.  According to a press release from Wiener’s office, the goal of the bill was to “redress the disparity” in between the way heterosexual and LGBT offenders are treated under the existing law.  Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, sexual intercourse does not require the offender to be placed on the sex offender registry. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse—the kind of intercourse engaged in by same-sex couples—sex offender registration is mandated under all conditions. Bill 145 now effectively removes that distinction, so that a 25-year-old man will be able to engage in same-sex behavior with a 15-year-old boy without incurring the mandate to register as a sex offender.

Normally, churches and faith leaders would have something to say about such a bill. In fact, there are many people of faith who believe that keeping the churches closed is a strategy designed to shape public policy without the input of faithful voices. The continuing disparity, quite blatant in many cases, between how houses of worship and houses of commerce are treated certainly raises legitimate questions and serious concerns. Although their 501c-3 status prevents all churches from engaging in political activities, many churches have historically advised parishioners to be informed about candidates’ positions on non-negotiable issues such as respect for life in choosing how to vote.

“The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges,” wrote Justice Gorsuch in his dissent from the majority opinion in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak. “But there is no world,” he insisted, “in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.” Alas, as Catholics in San Francisco are learning, that world both exists and appears to not be changing anytime soon.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Anne Hendershott 101 Articles
Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio.  She is the author of The Politics of Envy (Sophia Books, 2020)


  1. G. Whitmer in MI went to a Detroit protest and when asked why she didn’t social distance she said, “You couldn’t.” So the idea that we ‘can’t overwhelm our health care’ doesn’t apply to that protest type scenario?

    Maybe we are going to Mass or services to protest our SINS, or the idiots we elected.

    • knowall,
      I think you’re on to something:

      The Church should fully open its doors, but clearly state that it’s engaging in protest. In this case, protest against unjust civil rules.

  2. Gov Newsom is “Queen” Pelosi’s Nephew. Birds of a feather flock together.In San Francisco’s case it’s the Marxist species.

  3. The results of this ineffectual and, frankly, pathetic pleading with hardened enemies of the Church are not going to improve as times goes by. It should be obvious that a showdown with the State is inevitable if the Church is to survive in places like San Francisco. The archbishop will have to fling the doors wide open and dare the government to crack down. Legal challenges are unlikely to succeed with justices like John Roberts so prevalent on the bench. Of course, the Church lockdowns are unfair and unconstitutional, but what does not matter to lawless politicians? Being arrested for the offense of asserting the prerogatives of the Church is not something to be avoided at all costs. And there is a possibility, stronger than most think, that brazen defiance actually might cause Dennis Herrera and his ilk to back down. They are so used to no resistance to their aggression from the Church, that they might fold if confronted in such a way. Besides, if Archbishop Cordileone took such a bold step, the representatives of the New World order at the Vatican likely would countermand his order immediately and probably sack him.

    • May be the Vatican and other world Institutions are the visible face of “the New World Order”. Who are the invisible heads of this new World, Is mystery like the Catholic Mysteries that must be believed as such without asking questions.

  4. Meeting the attacks on the Church in the United States head-on is something that should have been decades ago, when the Church had far more leverage than it does now. In the ’70s and ’80s, when Catholic politicians led by Mario Cuomo and, especially, Ted Kennedy began to repudiate their positions against legalized abortion there should have been swift and severe consequences. Instead there were little more than mild rebukes. Cardinal O’Connor had a running battle with Cuomo for several years, but even he seemed to lose heart and Cuomo won. The bishops of the era were unequal to the task at hand for a variety of reasons – some were barely concealed traitors to the faith, some were sentimental liberals like Cardinal O’Malley who admired so many of the positions of people like Kennedy on other issues, others were just cowardly and unimaginative bureaucrats. Whatever the reasons, their failures are why we are where we are today.

    • Failure before death is never final. Where there is life, there is hope. This applies to the Church as well as individuals. So long as there is one true Catholic, the Church exists.

      As far as I understand it, it is a mortal sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion. However, there can be a certain compromise with regards to the “less evil” candidate. One must remember that there are 9 ways that one can participate in the sins of others.

      • What is MORE evil than not only supporting the murder of the most helpless person on earth – a child in the womb – but also making the taxpayers who DON’T support that murder help pay for it?

  5. Well, let’s see. Centuries, no, only decades ago, priests were willing to and did give their lives. Now the idea of a Catholic bishop or priest or Pope afraid simply to file a lawsuit or to be arrested cows them into submission. Bad Shepherds. Feckless Shepherds. We will not forget when you ask us for money. You are non-essential. You are cowards.

  6. This does not include all bishops and priests. We are blessed to have some who are wonderful and strong. Regrettably there are not enough. Why are Protestant pastors willing to stand up?

    • Nicholas,
      A Pentecostal pastor in our state was arrested a couple times for ignoring the lockdown rules back in the Spring. Even after arrest he went right back to running his church as usual in defiance of the law.
      Fortunately for him we live in the Bible Belt and he didn’t suffer any serious legal consequences.
      I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Initially the church closures made sense because we didn’t know what we were dealing with. Millions of deaths were predicted and to be fair, pastors were more concerned with the well being of their flocks than their own safety. At least that’s the way it should be.
      At this point in time people have a better idea of what risks are taken attending church and the original restrictions aren’t appropriate. And I think they’re being applied selectively.
      While I’m cautious about Covid infection , I know it’s being used as a political narrative. It’s amusing in a dark sort of way to read the competing narratives, each trying to get our attention in an election year.
      Fear is a perfect tool to control society.

      • As St.JP II and Jesus said, Be Not Afraid. Many prelates rushed to impose more stringent restrictions than the governments did. E.g. Cardinal Cupich. Even the Vatican at first. The Protestant pastors, sometimes of small churches,stand up for the rights of their congregations. When I wrote “Bad Shepherds”, that is actually the title of a highly-respected author on Catholicism. I am parroting his comments. Like you, I initially saw both sides. No one can now credibly disavow the blatant discrimination.

      • If you would like to see the support for my statements (actually I simply used the titles), see “Bad Shepherds” by Rod Bennett, who appears on EWTN hardly an anti-Catholic network– and “Lost Shepherd” by Phillip Lawler, who founded Catholic World Service. In our State, the leftist governor said abortion clinics, marijuana shops, and lottery stores were “essential” but churches were not. The Catholic churches did not challenge it. So again, I am using language from government Executive Orders, not my own. Moreover, the financial situation is precisely as I described. People now are withholding contributions.

  7. Incidentally, Philip Lawler, whose book title I used in my original post, is a frequent contributor to excellent articles.

3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Double standards for gatherings in San Francisco a source of growing frustration - Catholic Mass Search
  2. Double standards for gatherings in San Francisco a source of growing frustration – Religion and Law
  3. Bits & Bytes |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.