First of all, Tom Monaghan would never say to his bishop: who the f#ck he thought he was, [or] told him to f#ck himself and everyone else who worked in his chancery office.
In your wishful thinking description he sounds like flaming power-hungry liberal. Tom Monaghan is a devout Catholic and a very humble man. There was a PBS program about him last year. This guy was so humble that he even considered driving a luxury car to be a sinful indulgence.
And here is a quote from Monaghan,
I am grateful that I have been given the faith to accept what the Church teaches. If the Church is for something, I am for it; if the Church is against something, I am against it. To support Church teaching, I don’t have to be able to win a debate. I simply begin with the assumption that the Church is right. Then I try to find projects to spread the faith and to strengthen the Church wherever I can.>If half of what I've heard about Monaghan is true (good and bad), then the story is probably true.
Half-truths are also known as LIES.
>Church laity was more competent, more capable, and more educated than the clergy...
Another example of liberal wishful thinking. The "clergy" do not come from outer space, they are "laity" before they become clergy.
How do they become clergy?
By studying for many years and, finally, being ordained upon graduation. How then, could someone without that painstaking preparation suddenly become more competent, more capable, and more educated, huh?
Finally, a piece of advice, if you post something "revolutionary," check your sources first or at least use common sense.
By studying for many years and, finally, being ordained upon graduation. How then, could someone without that painstaking preparation suddenly become more competent, more capable, and more educated, huh?
Talk about liberal spin -- Formal study in a seminary (or in any other institution of higher learning) does NOT necessarily make someone more "competent," more "capable," or more "educated." In fact, my experience in private industry has led me to believe that the amount of time a person spends in a high-profile university is inversely proportional to their performance as an employee. In almost any area of public discourse that doesn't involve nuanced theological discussions, you'll generally find that the Catholic clergy has been eclipsed by Catholic lay people. Read the documents published by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on the subject of economics -- the economic positions taken by the U.S. bishops are so idiotic and childish that they are embarrassing to read, and the "knowledge" contained in these reports pales in comparison to the expertise of lay Catholic economists like Michael Novak, Lawrence Kudlow, etc. Sitting in a classroom studying economics doesn't make one competent, but working in those fields on a daily basis sure does.
The New Testament offers a remarkable lesson for us today -- one that very few people seem to appreciate. John was undoubtedly Christ's favorite disciple -- his love and devotion to Our Lord was unwavering. Christ entrusted His mother to John as He was dying on the cross, and John was the only apostle whose faith was so solid that he didn't have to die a martyr's death.
Peter was a different story. He was a short-tempered man who was apparently willing to use violence when he felt a need to do so. He was a weak, selfish man who would deny Christ three times in Pilate's courtyard. And yet it was PETER, not JOHN, whom Christ selected as the rock upon which He would build His church. This was no accident, and I would venture to guess that the Church's problems today will persist until a few more Peters and a few less Johns are in positions of authority.
"Class grades were given out very liberally at seminary. Some courses had only one oral exam and the instructor would nearly fail you if you were conservative. If you were feminine in your behavior and liberal in your theology then you might get an A."