SANCTE PATER: Washington D.C.

Showing posts with label Washington D.C.. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Who Is The ‘Personal Chef’ Of Cardinal Donald Wuerl?

By George Neumayr

(The Daily Caller) A flashy and expensive white Mercedes rolled out from the four-car garage of Donald Wuerl around 10:05 PM on December 11. I was there in the parking lot of Queen of the Americas parish at 2200 California street in the luxurious neighborhood known commonly as Embassy Row.

The Catholic cardinal of the nation’s capital since 2006, Wuerl has long had a reputation for high living — despite his exalted status as the most powerful American prelate in what the media calls the “humble church” of Pope Francis. (In his previous posting as a bishop in Pittsburgh, he lived in a 31-room mansion filled with antiques, rugs, and art.) But few know the details of his furtive pursuits on Embassy Row — a posh lifestyle which stands in shocking contrast to the simplicity Pope Francis insists he wants his shepherds to embrace.

I got a small glimpse of that contrast as I watched the white Mercedes move towards me. I put up my hand and the driver stopped and got out. “Do you work for Cardinal Wuerl?” I asked the black man, who appeared to be late middle age, as he exited the white Mercedes. “Yes,” he said. “I am his personal chef.”

Unaware that Cardinal Wuerl employed a personal chef, I asked the gentleman his name. He refused to give it. But he did describe himself as “an archdiocesan employee.”

Was the white Mercedes an archdiocesan vehicle? “I don’t know what you are implying,” said the man, who claimed the vehicle as his own, for which he paid with earnings from his time in the “military.”

Nervous and upset, the man resented my stopping him. “I got to get back to Baltimore,” he complained.

Earlier in the day, I had called Fr. Charles Cortinovis, the personal secretary to Cardinal Wuerl, multiple times and received no response. I had learned that Cortinovis lives, along with Wuerl, on the fourth floor of the archdiocesan building at 2200 California, a property priced at north of $43,000,000.

Cortinovis is the third personal secretary to Cardinal Wuerl during a tenure less than a decade. The other two had also lived on the same floor with the cardinal, which is “12,000 square feet,” according to a rough estimate by a lawyer familiar with the property records for the building... (continued)

Read More at The Daily Caller

Link:

Who Is The ‘Personal Chef’ Of Cardinal Donald Wuerl?

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Praying in Front of Planned Parenthood

From Father Frank Pavone:

"People from all walks of life praying with Fr. Frank in front of Planned Parenthood."

Related:

Father Zuhlsdorf, Father Nicholson, Father Pavone, and Michael Voris in Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

From ChurchMilitant.TV:

"Look who we ran into at the Reagan National airport...Fr. Frank Pavone with Priests for Life and Fr. Z!!"

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Same-sex weddings to begin at the Episcopal Church's Washington National Cathedral

By Michelle Boorstein

(The Washington Post) Washington National Cathedral — the seat of the Episcopal Church, one of the world’s largest cathedrals and the host of the official prayer service for the presidential inauguration later this month — has decided to start hosting same-sex weddings...

Even though it is known that the Episcopal Church, a small but prominent part of American Christianity, has been supportive of equality for gay men and lesbians, “it’s something for us to say we are going to do this in this very visible space where we pray for the president and where we bury leaders,” said the Rev. Gary Hall, who became dean of Washington National Cathedral in the fall. “This national spiritual space is now a place where [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people can come and get married...”

Hall said he would have approved the marriages at the cathedral soon anyway but was encouraged by having the formal rite, which he said gives same-sex couples a theologically proper ceremony.

The “heterosexual marriage [ritual] still has some vestiges of patriarchy, with woman being property. There’s hope in same-sex marriage that it is a teachable moment for heterosexual couples. The new rite is grounded in baptism and radical equality of all people before God,” said Hall, who has been blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples for decades. “I’d like to use it for heterosexual weddings because I think it’s so much better than our marriage services.”

Mark Masci, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum who has focused on the issue of same-sex marriage and religion, noted that it is the mainline Protestant denominations in American religion — among them Episcopalians, Presbyterians and United Methodists — who have experienced the most turmoil about the subject. The larger faith communities — the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and most of the nondenominational Christian world — “aren’t even considering these sorts of things.”

He said it’s impossible to predict where the issue is headed, but he noted that younger evangelicals generally seem more open on the topic of homosexuality than middle-aged or older ones.

The cathedral’s decision is the second time in recent weeks that Washington’s new Episcopal leadership has made headlines. Hall and Washington Bishop Mariann Budde, who arrived in the fall of 2011, were among the religious figures who quickly called for gun-control legislation after last month’s massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Link:

Same-sex weddings to begin at Washington National Cathedral

Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal

His spokeswoman has filed a complaint against me with TAS.

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator

http://spectator.org/assets/db/1313431165154.jpg

Last week Cardinal Donald Wuerl lodged a complaint against me with my editors at TAS, via his communications director, Chieko Noguchi, after my article, "Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty," appeared.

This is pretty much what I expected. Wuerl is notoriously thin-skinned about sharp criticism from orthodox Catholics. And since he likes to operate in the shadows -- confrontation is "not his style of pastoral ministry," he told a reporter in 2007 -- he had his paid PR agent do the dirty work for him. Say this for Tod Tamberg, Cardinal Roger Mahony's former spokesman: he at least wrote a straightforward letter to the editor denouncing me after I criticized the former Los Angeles prelate. Two, actually. In the first, Tamberg dismissed me as a "medievalist," which should give you a sense of the low esteem in which Mahony holds the age of Aquinas. In the second, Tamberg accused me of sloppiness while botching the spelling of my last name.

But as I say, at least he put pen to paper. Ms. Noguchi, perhaps reflecting the style of her boss, prefers to create troubles for me by phone.

Go ahead and do damage to me in this city, Cardinal Wuerl. I don't care. I will not surrender one inch to PC prelates like yourself who punish dutiful priests while pandering to the enemies of the Church.

http://www.ncregister.com/images/sized/images/uploads/CNA_WUERL(web)-255x313.jpg

This moronic controversy, triggered by a self-described practicing "lesbian Buddhist" who effortlessly mau-maued Cardinal Wuerl into a craven apology and trumped-up "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, is a grotesque farce beyond the satirical imagination of Evelyn Waugh.

I petition the Holy See -- if anyone happens to read TAS there -- for urgent relief. This scandal is sickening. Cardinal Wuerl has damaged the reputation of a faithful priest, exposed the Holy Eucharist to sacrilege, scandalized confused congregants, and handed a propaganda victory to forces of secularism that seek to destroy the Church in America.

Knowing Cardinal Wuerl, he will probably write to allies at the Vatican after this column appears. That was his practice in Pittsburgh, where he served before arriving in D.C. In 1994, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Wuerl, whenever he saw criticism of his heterodoxy appear in a conservative publication like the Wanderer, would move into action:

If The Wanderer or a letter-writer attacks him, Wuerl doesn't wait for Rome to send him an inquiry. He immediately writes to the appropriate Vatican office, enclosing a copy of the Wanderer article and full documentation on any diocesan program in question.

This ''shows that our teaching material here is absolutely orthodox. But the second purpose is to show that there are a lot of irresponsible statements made, and they need to be accepted as just that,'' he said.

Wuerl doesn't believe that Vatican officials take The Wanderer and its like seriously.
''I have never received an inquiry from Rome based on that type of accusation. If (Vatican officials) were taking it seriously, I think they would raise some questions,'' he said.

But not all bishops are as savvy as Wuerl, said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit political scientist who makes his living studying the bishops.

"Wuerl is sophisticated. He understands the Vatican, he knows who to talk to. The bishop who has never worked in Rome probably doesn't know which office to respond to -- and the people in Rome don't know him. Wuerl is known and respected in Rome. When (conservative pressure groups) start accusing him, they lose their credibility,'' Reese said.

Did you notice the source of that last quote -- Fr. Thomas Reese? He is the openly heterodox Jesuit ninny who had the gall to say that Wuerl should send Fr. Guarnizo back to the gulag. "If I was Cardinal Wuerl, I'd buy him a one-way ticket to Moscow," the Rolodexed Reese said to a purring press.

Perhaps non-Catholic readers of TAS, who have stayed with this column up to this paragraph, are wondering why they should even care about Wuerl's fiasco. Isn't this just one more tedious sectarian squabble in the Church? I agree with you that it is boring, but it is not trivial. As pretentious as it sounds, these skirmishes form small battles in a larger war that affects everyone. Both Catholic and non-Catholic Americans, whether they realize it or not, benefit from a free and orthodox Catholic Church for a very basic reason: it stands as the era's last major barrier to the triumph of the coercive secular state.

The capitulations of the Wuerls to the atheistic agitprop artists of the age -- the "lesbian Buddhist" at the center of this controversy stands as a symbol of them all -- hasten the disintegration of that barrier. Without it, the coercive state will simply replace God, and all Americans will wake up one day to find this pitiless secular deity on their doorsteps, red in the tooth and clause of Obamacare, ravenous for their freedom.

UPDATE: Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis

Link:

Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal

Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty

http://spectator.org/assets/db/13320931588267.jpg

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator on 3.19.12 @ 6:09AM

Since he won't control the sacraments, the Church's enemies will.

The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops. That's a slight paraphrase of a line from St. John Chrysostom.

The saints of old warned bishops to choose holiness and orthodoxy over the blandishments of the "world."

Many bishops today in America choose the good opinion of worldly elites over orthodoxy. These cufflinked cardinals worry not about punishment in the next world but slights in this one. They desperately crave the approval of America's movers and shakers and live in dread fear of losing it.

What will the Pretty People think if I withhold Communion from powerful pro-abortion Catholic pols? Will the Washington Post editorialize against me? Will I lose my place of honor at posh parties? Will my dissenting priests think ill of me? Will I be scorned at the next USCCB meeting?

These are some of the thoughts that race through the minds of modern prelates. Out of these anxieties comes fiascoes like Cardinal Donald Wuerl's recent one. Wuerl and his surrogates have rebuked a visiting priest from the archdiocese of Moscow for denying Communion to a self-described practicing lesbian at a funeral mass. That's not our "policy," gasped Wuerl's horrified surrogates.

But it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church. If a person is not in communion with the teachings of the Church, said person should not receive Communion. Period. Canon law makes this explicitly clear. If you don't believe me, ask the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, Cardinal Raymond Burke. Though most of his colleagues seem to ignore his stance, he has said for years that canon law places a grave burden on priests to protect the sacraments from defiant sinners. According to Burke, canon law is not a whimsical option for hardline eccentric priests but a moral duty which "obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament" to those in "manifest grave sin. "

Wuerl rejects this authoritative interpretation of canon law. A while back he was asked if he would withhold Communion from the pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi. He said no. That style of "confrontation" makes him uncomfortable, he told a persistent reporter.

I've heard Church insiders call the cardinal "Wuerl the girl," a reference to his precious personality. He has many fine qualities. He seems a little less common to me than some of his hackish colleagues. But cufflinks, starched shirts, learning, and reasonably civilized manners do not a good bishop make. Jesus Christ never required that his disciples place roses in his room or mints on his pillow. He walked straight at the decadent elites of his time, denounced them as a "brood of vipers," and then called it a day. It didn't take long for these vipers to kill him.

Wuerl can only earn the red of his rich robes through a willingness to endure the blood of Jesus Christ's martyrdom. And the truth is that protecting the sacraments would cost him far less than death. Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't clap him on the back so heartily after that. Maybe he would get an angry letter or two from moneyed donors in the tank for the Dems. But who cares?

This latest episode isn't even a close call. If Cardinal Wuerl doesn't have the guts to deny Communion to an agitprop lesbian Buddhist, he should just close up shop and hand the keys to his chancery over to Obama.
This ludicrous controversy reminds me of another fiasco, one from 2008. Remember when San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, while distributing Communion at a parish in the gay Castro district, handed out the sacred species to two garishly painted and costumed members of the homosexual activist group "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."

News of this sparked furor across the Catholic world, and even the liberal archbishop had to admit he blew it, saying dimly:

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. Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors, Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it…

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so…

Of course, the bishop's passive understanding of his duties and his fear of the liberal elite -- like Wuerl, Niederauer won't deny Communion to Nancy Pelosi either -- invited this outrage. After all, if a bishop announces that he is not a "gatekeeper," who can't come up to receive it? Such passivity was an invitation to abuse and the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" took it. Similarly, the lesbian Buddhist to which Wuerl cravenly apologized seized her chance to stick it to the Church.

The choice that the Wuerls face is clear: either they take seriously the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will multiply without end.
The notion that bishops aren't gatekeepers would come as a surprise to the Church's first ones. The apostles were told by Jesus Christ that the good shepherd watches the gate, lest his flock be eaten. "Do not give what is holy to dogs," Jesus warned them.

The Church's position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege and scandal is not determined by his "comfort" level, Cardinal Wuerl. It is determined by the clear requirements of canon law. Cardinal Burke has spoken; the case is closed. Either the bishops take control over their own sacraments or the Church's enemies will.

Updates:

Links:

Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action

Following Father Guarnizo's suspension, two D.C. area Catholic bloggers, An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic and Restore-D.C.-Catholicism, recommend the suspension of Cardinal Wuerl's Appeal pledges and instead donating money to other Catholic and pro-life causes and charities:

From Restore D.C. Catholicism:

Today, at the 9:30 Mass at St John Neumann parish, Father LaHood read a letter from Bishop Barry Knestout announcing the suspension of Father Marcel Guarnizo's priestly faculties. Did I say the letter was penned by Bishop Knestout? Let's not kid ourselves! This letter came straight from the top - Cardinal Wuerl. I'll bet my bottom dollar that all Bishop Knestout did was change the wording slightly (so that he could call the letter "his" with a straight face) and sign the thing. I really don't think he's to blame, as he is vowed to obedience, as is Father LaHood bound to obedience in reading this thing with the introductory comments. I recorded it so you can listen to the entire thing right here.

"The lesbian who is attempting to get a Catholic priest removed from his parish for denying her Holy Communion at her mother’s funeral is a Buddhist who describes herself as a “naturally born agitator” committed to a “culture war.” - LifeSiteNews

You'll hear towards the middle of the clip that "the issue discussed did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago. The issue pertains to actions over the past week or so." Then Father proceeds to read the letter from ~~Cardinal Wuerl Bishop Knestout~~ whoever. He announced the suspension and that it was taken after he "received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior towards parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."

Why, isn't it just the most peculiar of coincidences that these "credible allegations" are coming out of the woodwork on the heels of the Holy Communion issue two weeks ago? Father Guarnizo has been at the parish a year now - so these "intimidating behaviors" are now just beginning to surface? Just what is the nature of these "intimidating behaviors"? Who are the offended parties? Unless we see some real basis of these allegations, I'm willing to bet that - none exist!

I think we bloggers did too good of a job in revealing Ms. Johnson's utter lack of credibility. It certainly did her no good that there were other eye witnesses at the funeral Mass that contradicted her account of the events there. Thus the Archdiocese cannot act upon Ms. Johnson's complaints without being tainted with her lack of credibility. In other words, Plan A is shot, so they come up with Plan B.

So where are all these offended parish staff? Let's hear from them! If you post, don't do so anonymously for I will ascribe to it no credibility whatsoever. But I don't think there will be any such posts, for I believe there is really no such subject matter.

In the title of this post I said it's time to take action - perhaps it's way past that time. What do I suggest? Well, if you read the blog posts of A Washington DC Catholic, you'll see he suggested it first. I'm talking of suspension of your Cardinal's Appeal pledges. I agree with the other blogger when he says that's the only language that the bureaucrats in the chancery seem to understand from us. Of course let the chancery know precisely why they should not expect one more penny from you. Contact information is here.

So what to do with that money? Recalling that we are bound, under the Precepts of the Church, to support its work financially, I'd suggest taking that money and giving it directly to a Catholic and/or prolife cause that you know to be worthy of your donations: a crisis pregnancy center, a solid seminary, soup kitchen - there are numerous worthy candidates for your donations. Clearly "the work of the Church" does not mean throwing good priests under the bus when they uphold Canon 915 and I for one will not support that.

Links:

Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

Same-sex marriage bill, as written, called a threat to social service contracts

By Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

"They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.

The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.

The archdiocese's statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.

"Lets say an individual caterer is a staunch Christian and someone wants him to do a cake with two grooms on top," said council member Yvette M. Alexander (D-Ward 6), the sponsor of the amendment. "Why can't they say, based on their religious beliefs, 'I can't do something like that'?"

After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom. Gibbs said Wednesday that without Alexander's amendment and other proposed changes, the measure has too narrow an exemption. She said religious groups that receive city funds would be required to give same-sex couples medical benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples and rent a church hall to a support group for lesbian couples.

Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families accused the church of trying to "blackmail the city."

"The issue here is they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable," Rosenstein said.

Rosenstein and other gay rights activists have strong support on the council. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the judiciary committee, said the council "will not legislate based on threats."

"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."

Catania, who said he has been the biggest supporter of Catholic Charities on the council, said he is baffled by the church's stance. From 2006 through 2008, Catania said, Catholic Charities received about $8.2 million in city contracts, as well as several hundred thousand dollars' worth this year through his committee.

"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Terry Lynch, head of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations, said he did not know of any other group in the city that was making such a threat.

"I've not seen any spillover into programming. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen if [the bill] passes," he said.

Cheh said she hopes the Catholic Church will reconsider its stance.

"Are they really going to harm people because they have a philosophical disagreement with us on one issue?" Cheh asked. "I hope, in the silver light of day, when this passes, because it will pass, they will not really act on this threat."

Link

Monday, August 25, 2008

Archbishop Wuerl on the Church’s Constant Teaching on Abortion

August 25, 2008

The following statement is from Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl:

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect.

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition...” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

Contact:
Susan Gibbs
Director of Communications
301-853-4517
gibbss@adw.org

Link

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

House Bill Would End D.C. Registration Rules

By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; B04

D.C. officials are trying to beat back an effort by some lawmakers to send a bill to the House floor that would dramatically weaken the city's gun laws.

The gun bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and Mark Souder (R-Ind.), was introduced previously and stalled. The measure now stands a good chance of gaining approval by the House of Representatives because of an unusual legislative maneuver, congressional staff members and observers said.

Souder said he acted because the D.C. government has made only limited changes to its 32-year-old handgun ban since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that it was unconstitutional. In particular, he said, the city's new, temporary legislation still requires handgun owners to keep their weapons disassembled or secured with a trigger lock unless someone in the home was in danger. The District also continues to prohibit residents from owning semiautomatic handguns.

"The net impact is to defy the Supreme Court," Souder said.

The bill would repeal the District's ban on semiautomatic pistols and eliminate all registration requirements.

Souder is seeking to bring the bill to the floor through a "discharge petition," which requires the signatures of 218 House members. The move allows the measure to bypass House committees, and forces the Democratic majority to allow the full chamber to vote on it.

Since filing the petition last week, Souder has collected 109 signatures. He is confident of picking up sufficient support since 247 legislators had previously co-sponsored the gun bill, including 56 Democrats...