Fr. Eugene Heidt and Archbishop Levada (A diocesan priest's experience)

Priest Where Is Thy Mass, Mass Where Is Thy Priest? | January 2004

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Fr. Eugene Heidt and Archbishop Levada

Excerpted from “Priest Where Is Thy Mass, Mass Where Is Thy Priest.”

Q: So obedience is not really an objection against saying the traditional Mass, when you consider that it’s not forbidden by the Church?

Fr. H: Correct. There is no question of disobedience involved here, no way.

Q: How did your convictions about the old Mass sit with the Chancery?

Fr. H: Things just got worse. A couple of years before, I had written a letter about what they called the “Stewardship Council.” That was a program that they used to raise money for the operation of the Archdiocese. I told the people in the parish that we couldn’t contribute to that. I black-balled the “Stewardship Council”!

Q: Why did you black-ball it?

Fr. H: Because of the immoral causes that they were promoting. I named some of them in the letter I wrote. But I have to go back a little bit to explain some of this. It all came to a head with this question of the money for the “Stewardship Council” – that’s what really got Archbishop Levada going. I remember coming home from meeting with him on one of those occasions. I said, “You know, that man isn’t Catholic. The Archbishop is not Catholic!” I was telling the whole parish this. No wonder he got so angry with me, in the end of it all!

When Archbishop Levada had first come to the Archdiocese, I was the first one to have an appointment with him after he was installed. I went in there for an hour and a half, and I poured out my heart to him, because I was told he was a good, traditional, orthodox bishop, and that he was going to straighten this Archdiocese out. So I really churned my heart out to him, and he just sat there. He was like an episcopal vacuum cleaner, sucking all this stuff up and listening to it. I told him about the homosexuality in the Church, and I said “I can name six or seven homosexual priests in the diocese. They call themselves the ‘altar society.’” He said, “You’ve come in here with a bunch of rumors, and I’m not going to listen to that.” I said, “Well, one day, somebody is going to have to pay!” But he wouldn’t listen.

Every time I went to see him, I’d go in and argue with him. I think there is only one pastoral letter he wrote, supposedly on the Mass and the Eucharist. I read the thing and I took it to his office, and I said, “Did you write this? Is this supposed to be a complete treatise on the Eucharist and the Mass? How did you manage to get through this whole thing without once mentioning Transubstantiation?” “Well, that’s such a long and difficult term anyway,” he said, “and we don’t use that term anymore.”

I said, “I don’t think that’s the correct estimate of that word. When I was in the first grade and our good little Benedictine Sister was preparing us for First Holy Communion, I can remember her putting that up on the board. She put ‘trans,’ and then she put a line. Then she put ‘substantiation,’ and then she went through and explained what each of those things meant. She was able to put it in terms we could understand, so that we knew that the Bread and the Wine are substantially different from what they were before the Consecration.” He just repeated “That’s such a confusing term!” So, I said, “Let’s go on to the next item.”

The “next item” was his having gone to Our Lady of Atonement Parish – that’s what they called a “Catholic-Lutheran joint parish,” where they have a priest on one end of the altar and a Lutheran minister on the other, and they go back and forth. I asked, “What did you do over there?” and he answered, “We concelebrated liturgy.” “What does that mean?” I asked, “Did you and the Lutheran minister say Mass together? What did you do?” He just wouldn’t discuss it any more.

And then, one night during all this “Stewardship” business, the Archbishop really got angry. He called me up, it was after hours, 5:05 pm! He was supposed to be on his way home, but he stopped and called me. He was SO livid, he could hardly talk on the phone. He said, “You be in my office at ten o’clock tomorrow morning before the diocesan consulters and the other bishops of the diocese. Plead your case there!” I said, “Well, all right, I will be glad to come in and do that, but I haven’t got any time to document all this.” He said, “That’s okay, just come on in and tell us what’s on your mind.”

So, I was in there probably an hour altogether, and those priests were lined up in a big horseshoe, you know, and I was at the table on the end by myself. I had my tape recorder, which I set up beside me, and, as I was trying to plug it in, I heard a voice up at the other end: “Hey, you can’t use a recorder in here!” I turned around, and it was the archbishop. I asked, “Why not?” He said, “We don’t record this kind of meeting.” And I said, “Oh, all right, but I’ll plug it in while I’m talking and unplug it while you’re talking, how’s that?” Then I set up a chair beside me, and one of the bishops, who used to be a very good friend of mine, asked what the chair was for. They were waiting for an attorney to come in, I suppose. I said “Well, that’s for my Guardian Angel.” And these priests looked at me like I was kind of crazy, you know.

At the end of my little speech, the Archbishop said, “Okay, I agree with you on everything except for the question of homosexuality in the Seminary. We took care of that a couple of weeks ago. Of course, you wouldn’t know about that meeting, but it’s already been taken care of.” But he sided with me on the rest of the other complaints that I had.

Afterwards, he got on my case, and he finally told me to take a sabbatical. He said, “You can take you sabbatical if you want, and you are free to write up a proposal of what you want to do.” I agreed, and I took a month to get my plan together and brought it back to him.

I told him that I wanted to spend five months or so studying the Council of Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, and all of the papal encyclicals from the last two hundred years. But he said, “No, No, That’s non-productive. You will go to the University and take their ‘Credo’ course” (which was an updating in theology). But I said “No, No.” I said, like the boys said when it was time to go to Vietnam: “Hell no, I won’t go! No thanks.” So he said, “Then I’ll send you to a monastery for your sabbatical, and I will draw up a course of studies for you. You will have a private mentor.” I said, “No, I do not need a guru.” Finally, he told me to go ahead and do what I wanted.

I said then that I wanted to spend the last couple of weeks of my sabbatical in Fatima, to talk all this stuff over with our Blessed Lady, and then I would come back. And he agreed. Well, I never got to Fatima, but in the meantime this place came up for sale, and I knew I had been had by that time. When I went back to see him, after the sabbatical was over, he told me that, because I had said the Latin Mass in “excommunicated” chapels, mainly Portland and Veneta [Oregon], he could no longer use my services. So I said, “Okay. You do what you have to do. But you’re going to have to tie me up in chains to stop me from offering the Latin Mass.” He threatened to suspend me if I didn’t stop.

A month or so went by, and I got a letter from him telling me to get an attorney so that we could have a hearing in Portland. I thought it was over, and I decided that, no matter who I got, the result would be the same. In conscience, no Novus Ordo priest could defend me, and, if I got one of the Society of St. Pius X priests, they wouldn’t listen to him. So I wrote back to him and asked him to appoint an attorney for me. I sent this priest the whole case, and he read it and sent it back to me. He said to go back to the Archbishop and tell him that I was sorry and then submit and obey the Archbishop. And then, at the end of the letter, he said, “Besides, the traditional Latin Mass is a thing of the past, and within ten years it will be nothing more than a footnote in the history of the Church.” And so I get nowhere with that. The next thing I knew, the Archbishop sent me a letter of suspension. I never did have a hearing.

I moved up here in 1988, the very weekend that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained the four Bishops. Then, I asked Fr. Laisney if I could help him out in the chapels in Portland and Venata, and he said, “Welcome aboard!” And I have been doing it ever since.

Q: So you’re a renegade because you won’t give up the traditional idea of the priesthood and the Mass. How would you describe the new idea of the priest? What do they think the priest is, in those theological updating courses, for instance?

Fr. H: I don’t know because I never went.

Q: You never went to a seminar?

Fr. H: No, I stopped that right in the beginning. They used to have three-day seminars, once a year. I went to the first one, and I stayed the first morning. At mid-morning, we met with the Archbishop, and we could ask him any kind of questions that we wanted. Well, the Archbishop started out with one of the directives that came from Rome, and he said that the Masses of priests who use anything other than unleavened bread and sacramental wine are to be questioned. But the Archbishop himself was pooh-poohing the idea. So these priest go the idea that they could go ahead and use pita bread, cookie dough, whatever. You could go down to Safeway and get a jug of wine or even grape juice! It didn’t seem to make too much difference to him.

I poked the priest sitting to one side of me and said, “Hey did you hear what he just said?” He said yes. I poked the one on the other side (he was a classmate of mine), and I said, “Did you hear what he just said?” He said yes. I said, “Well, in my book that’s unacceptable!” and I got up and walked out the door and went home. And that’s the last one I attended. I don’t know what they say anymore about the priesthood, the sacraments, or whatever. I just don’t pay any attention to them.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Every time I went to see him, I’d go in and argue with him. I think there is only one pastoral letter he wrote, supposedly on the Mass and the Eucharist. I read the thing and I took it to his office, and I said, “Did you write this? Is this supposed to be a complete treatise on the Eucharist and the Mass? How did you manage to get through this whole thing without once mentioning Transubstantiation?” “Well, that’s such a long and difficult term anyway,” he said, “and we don’t use that term anymore.”

Meet our new guardian of orthodoxy.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

They used to have three-day seminars, once a year. I went to the first one, and I stayed the first morning. At mid-morning, we met with the Archbishop, and we could ask him any kind of questions that we wanted. Well, the Archbishop started out with one of the directives that came from Rome, and he said that the Masses of priests who use anything other than unleavened bread and sacramental wine are to be questioned. But the Archbishop himself was pooh-poohing the idea. So these priest go the idea that they could go ahead and use pita bread, cookie dough, whatever. You could go down to Safeway and get a jug of wine or even grape juice! It didn’t seem to make too much difference to him.

[murphE]

Well, in my book that’s unacceptable!” and I got up and walked out the door and went home. And that’s the last one I attended.

Hey that's pretty much what I did when I was in a pastoral [mal]formation class offered by my diocese.

[murphE]

Then, I asked Fr. Laisney if I could help him out in the chapels in Portland and Venata, and he said, “Welcome aboard!”

I just met Fr. Laisney. He was giving a lecture on the Shroud a few weeks ago. It was excellent.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

More Levada information in this old FR thread -

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/700876/posts

Among his [Mahony] former classmates, to name a few, are William J. Levada, archbishop of San Francisco; George Niederhauer, bishop of Salt Lake City; Justin S. Regali, archbishop of St. Louis; Manuel D. Moreno, bishop of Tucson, Arizona; Tod D. Brown, bishop of the Diocese of Orange, and John T. Steinbock, bishop of Fresno.

--snip--

New Times has learned that Mahony chum and longtime Zieman friend and fellow St. John's alum William Levada, the archbishop of San Francisco, is playing a prominent role in supervising Zieman's "spiritual rehabilitation." This, despite heated denials by Levada's spokesman that the archbishop has had nothing to do with Zieman's supervision in Arizona. Levada publicly lauded Zieman on the day he resigned his Santa Rosa post, even as the bishop insisted that the allegations against him were false. Even the location of Zieman's exile hardly seems coincidental. The bishop in whose jurisdiction the monastery is located is none other than Manuel Moreno, a classmate of both Mahony's and Levada's at St. John's and another longtime Zieman friend.

--snip--

Archbishop Levada of San Francisco, a longtime Zieman friend and another of Mahony's chums from St. John's, issued a statement that sounded more like a testimonial than a farewell to a disgraced spiritual leader. Levada said he joined "friends throughout California and beyond in thanking [Zieman] for the energy and gifts he has shared far and wide. Our prayers and good wishes go with him."

--snip--

Church officials' reluctance to discuss one of American Catholicism's most notorious bad boys is understandable, considering his close ties to Roger Mahony. Take Levada, for example. Sources say that before former San Francisco archbishop John Quinn resigned prematurely in 1995, he submitted the names of 10 bishops to the Vatican as possible successors and that Levada (St. John's class of '61), then bishop of Portland, Oregon, wasn't among them. Rather, within church circles Mahony is widely credited with having exerted his influence with the Vatican to win the coveted San Francisco appointment for Levada, his longtime friend and former St. John's classmate.

--snip--

And despite the vigorous denials by Healy and another San Francisco archdiocese representative that Levada has played a role in his friend Zieman's supervision, both Wagner and Quinn revealed the opposite. Indeed, the two church leaders say Levada -- along with no lesser personage than the papal nuncio, the Vatican's ambassador to the United States -- is directly involved in supervising the activities of the group charged with helping to restore Zieman to spiritual health. Levada consults with one or another member of the group after each session with Zieman and has met personally with Zieman and the group at least twice. Asked if Zieman is welcome to attend the meeting of American bishops that was to begin in Dallas on June 13, Quinn says he supposes "that he [is], but I doubt very seriously that he would attend given his circumstances." Meanwhile, when asked if he foresees a time when Zieman's role as a bishop may be normalized, Wagner, the vicar general, concludes, "We never like to say never."

[murphE]

I bumped it out of the archives...pinged you to it.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Got it.

I should add, prayers are requested for Fr. Heidt. The word is that he is in poor health and not expected to survive much longer. Ironic this news comes on the day Levada is appointed to CDF and the first day of Our Lady's apparitions at Fatima.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Ping

More info on Levada here.

[Dajjal]

sad bumpus ad summum

[kstewskis]

I have this book, but haven't gotten to this part yet.

It sounds like we're screwed....unless the Holy Ghost hears our S.O.S. very soon.

[Diago]

I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger actually did want the job of Pope and actually campaigned for it. And perhaps, one of the deals he cut before hand was to promise to pick a liberal American as his own replacement. The same way presidential candidates pick a VP who will balance the ticket. This whole thing is quite heartbreaking.

[Siobhan]

Thank you for this ping. This is just the sort of thing I knew was out there but couldn't put my fingers on.

[Siobhan]

More than heartbreaking. Diabolical -- unless I am really missing something here.

[Diago]

According to other reports:

On the morning of his election, Ratzinger had breakfast with four cardinals from Asia and Africa and also Roger Mahony of Los Angeles. At breakfast, and throughout all the meetings leading to the conclave, Ratzinger was able to address each cardinal by name and spoke to them in shared languages, according to Mahony.

[Siobhan]

The slime trail always leads to Mahony.

[Arguss]

I think the honeymoon is over and we are getting a clearer vision of where Pope Benedict will be taking the Church. No place new apparently.

All those good feelings and hopes I had are starting to wear thin. Somebody once made the comment here, and that I had long held, that the office of CDF was charged with simply slowing down, not stopping, the creep of modernism in the Church. To allow it (modernism) to play out unchecked would destroy the Church overnight rather than allow it to morph into a modernist tool. That apparently was Ratzinger's job, and now falls on Levada.

[murphE]

All those good feelings and hopes I had are starting to wear thin. Somebody once made the comment here, and that I had long held, that the office of CDF was charged with simply slowing down, not stopping, the creep of modernism in the Church. To allow it (modernism) to play out unchecked would destroy the Church overnight rather than allow it to morph into a modernist tool. That apparently was Ratzinger's job, and now falls on Levada.

[sigh]

Ping

[Pyro7480]

Arugss,

I believe you meant to ping Diago to your post #17, not Diego.

In the words of the character Zorg from the movie "The Fifth Element," "I am very... disappointed," to say the least. Thank you Debbie for posting this. I have this book too, but it's been a while. I agree with kstweskis that we need to pray, and pray HARD, particularly to the Holy Ghost. Between this, his connection to Mahoney, and the pagan prayer that his archdiocese had posted, Levada's posting to Ratzinger's old post is not a good development at all. As with all things, we should be vigilant.

[Frank Sheed]

Caution all!

Sin of Despair, St. Thomas, Summa

Frank

[St. Johann Tetzel]

Despair, in a temporal sense, should be distinguished from despair , in the sense of complete abandonment of all hope of saving one's soul and of having the means required for that end.

We can "despair" of the elevation of Levada because of possible temporal evils that may result from his elevation, but that does not necessarily mean we are mortally sinnning, despairing of eternal salvation.

On the other hand it helps to recall that God is in charge and brings good out of evil, and that He provides temporal Providence.

Despair

(Latin desperare, to be hopeless.)

Despair, ethically regarded, is the voluntary and complete abandonment of all hope of saving one's soul and of having the means required for that end. It is not a passive state of mind: on the contrary it involves a positive act of the will by which a person deliberately gives over any expectation of ever reaching eternal life. There is presupposed an intervention of the intellect in virtue of which one comes to decide definitely that salvation is impossible. This last is motived by the persuasion either that the individual's sins are too great to be forgiven or that it is too hard for human nature to cooperate with the grace of God or that Almighty God is unwilling to aid the weakness or pardon the offenses of his creatures, etc.

It is obvious that a mere anxiety, no matter how acute, as to the hereafter is not to be identified with despair. This excessive fear is usually a negative condition of soul and adequately discernible from the positive elements which clearly mark the vice which we call despair. The pusillanimous person has not so much relinquished trust in God as he is unduly terrified at the spectacle of his own shortcomings of incapacity.

The sin of despair may sometimes, although not necessarily, contain the added malice of heresy in so far as it implies an assent to a proposition which is against faith, e.g. that God has no mind to supply us with what is needful for salvation.

Despair as such and as distinguished from a certain difference, sinking of the heart, or overweening dread is always a mortal sin. The reason is that it contravenes with a special directness certain attributes of Almighty God, such as His goodness, mercy, and faith-keeping. To be sure despair is not the worst sin conceivable: that evil primacy is held by the direct and explicit hatred of God; neither is it as great as sins against faith like formal heresy or apostasy. Still its power for working harm in the human soul is fundamentally far greater than other sins inasmuch as it cuts off the way of escape and those who fall under its spell are frequently, as a matter of fact, found to surrender themselves unreservedly to all sorts of sinful indulgence.

[AlbionGirl]

“You know, that man isn’t Catholic. The Archbishop is not Catholic!” I was telling the whole parish this. No wonder he got so angry with me, in the end of it all!

I wouldn't trust any Priest who did what this guy did.

I live and worship in one of the most liberal diocese in the Country. Rome had to act before our Bishop could find the stones to banish a local Priest who tried to ordain women. He's got lots of women in 'pastoral leadership' roles, whatever the hell that means! He's as big a flaming liberal as you're ever going to encounter.

That being said my Priest, who has had myriad differences with the good Bishop, so much so that he was nearly thrown out on his ear because he dared to upbraid those who were manifestly guilty of Liturgical abuses.

He invited all of his congregation to do the same to any superior who they believe is concocting some Liturgical mishap.

But he would never stoop to such a level as to malign the Bishop to his Parishoners.

Levada may be a problematic appointment, but this piece isn't going to be the one to convince me of that.

[GrannyML]

Does anybody have a problem with this priest? I will grant you that he is well-meaning, but he certainly lacks obedience and deference. No matter what you think of a bishop, he does have the fullest of holy orders and is thus deserving of more respect than I see this priest giving him.

While this information may be disquieting, I am appalled at the way this priest badmouthed the Archbisop to his congregation, and it leads me to question the complete accuracy of this account.

God bless,

[St. Johann Tetzel]

“You know, that man isn’t Catholic. The Archbishop is not Catholic!” I was telling the whole parish this. No wonder he got so angry with me, in the end of it all!

I wouldn't trust any Priest who did what this guy did.

But...what if its true?!? Did Jesus hesitate to call the leaders of his time to account?

[St. Johann Tetzel]

he certainly lacks obedience and deference

When the leaders are wolves revaging the flocks, must we be "nice" in confronting them? Was Jesus "nice" to the Jewish hypocrites who led His Father's church at that time?

[AlbionGirl]

The truth will not be stopped or suppressed.

To conduct yourself like this guy conducted himself is unacceptable to me. The Bishop even if he is the worst Bishop to come down the pike in 2,000 years, even if he is the biggest nitwit to ever wear a Mitre, should not be spoken about in that manner to the congregation.

I used the example of my own Priest to illustrate how a gentleman and a scholar conducts himself, all the while taking an errant and rather mediocre (yet powerful) Bishop to task. He suffered for that, but didn't reduce himself to such a mean level. And still he instructs the Faithful, and still the Faithful love and appreciate him.

[GrannyML]

So, where did I say he had to be "nice"? I merely advocate that he treat his bishop with respect. Lack of obedience is the problem, whether it comes from those who disobey liturgical norms or those who set themselves above their priests and bishops.

We can disagree or teach without disdain, and accomplish far more, IMHO.

God bless,

[maryz]

Levada may be a problematic appointment, but this piece isn't going to be the one to convince me of that.

You're so restrained! ;-)

I'm afraid I think this priest sounds like someone you hope won't sit next to you on the bus!

[Frank Sheed]

The announcement of this appointment was made yesterday, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima. It was also the 24th anniversary of the attempt on John Paul II's life. He freely admitted that Our Lady saved his life as he bent down to touch a medal of her.

This is the Gospel of yesterday:

Gospel
Jn 21:15-19

After Jesus had revealed himself to his disciples and eaten breakfast with them, he said to Simon Peter,"Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"

Simon Peter answered him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs."

He then said to Simon Peter a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"

Simon Peter answered him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."

He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"

Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you."

Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."
He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God.

And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me."

St. Johann, I will follow this Pope who is following Christ. This was no accident. B-16 chose Levada knowing that his mission is to "feed HIS sheep." We had antipated this announcement all week and it came yesterday. I see the hand of God in that. You may not. I will follow him in obedience.

Frank

[AlbionGirl]

Not to repeat myself (but I want to!), I have no respect for a Priest who conducts himself like this.

[AlbionGirl]

"Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

I love this Scripture. Doesn't it also imply that tough choices lie ahead?

[Frank Sheed]

---He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God.---

Following God's will had a cost for Peter and all the Apostles save John. Yes, tough choices lie ahead. Benedict, above all, would know that. His choice is his choice. If choosing the Apostles had been a reality series, how quickly would it have taken for Peter to be voted off the ship?

;-0)

Frank

[AlbionGirl]

+Peter: You are the weakest link! Goodbye! Just kidding, don't mean any disrespect to our Cephas.

I've always found the contrast between +Peter and +Paul to be interesting. What quality did this Fisherman have that the Lord picked him above all others as the Rock on which he would build his Church? Why didn't the Lord hurl +Paul from his Horse long before he did and build His Church on Him?

[Frank Sheed]

Peter had a brother, Andrew, and owned a boat. It did allow Christ to embark His Church with two oars in the water!

Seriously, I think Peter was simple, the foundation, a powerful man physically. Paul was a scholar of the law and largely made the vital intellectual connections between the old law and new law.

One interesting thing to note about the descriptions in the Gospels, especially after the Last Supper in the Gospel of John, is how much time was spent preparing these men for ministry. That is often overlooked. Jesus knew that He was leaving behing an edifice and trained these men well. Eleven were martyrs.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/SPIRCATH.HTM#06

[AlbionGirl]

Thanks for the link, appreciate it.

[sockmonkey]

The “next item” was his having gone to Our Lady of Atonement Parish – that’s what they called a “Catholic-Lutheran joint parish,” where they have a priest on one end of the altar and a Lutheran minister on the other, and they go back and forth. I asked, “What did you do over there?” and he answered, “We concelebrated liturgy.” “What does that mean?” I asked, “Did you and the Lutheran minister say Mass together? What did you do?”

Mission - Mission of the Atonement
Lutheran and Catholic congregation
7400 SW Scholls Ferry Rd., Beaverton, OR 97008
503-646-1344

I must confess I have never heard of a Lutheran-Catholic Congregation before.

[Gerard.P]

Peter was also chosen for his weaknesses. Unfortunately for his pride, God utilized all of his failings in order to publicly teach us a great lesson about the office he built for Peter.

Peter made foolish mistakes as in Antioch. Christ showed us that his Popes will be merely men and not changed after elevation.

Paul's blistering rebuke of Peter indicates that subordinates must sometimes rebuke their superiors. This is a lesson for Popes as well as everyone else. Popes need to exhibit the humility of Peter is accepting rebuke when it is a true rebuke.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

In some ways, I can identify with St. Peter especially. Big of heart, wanting to be there, aching with immense sorrow when he just couldn't follow up...flawed, but the love in his heart for Jesus even when he stumbled, filled with fear, was a flame that still warms us today.

He felt that call, experienced the living fire, lived with fear and doubt and love and desire all rolled into one.

But the important thing is his failures didn't stop him. He stood up, came back and trudged on because of love.

Perhaps this is a quality Jesus wanted us to see...we don't have to be perfect. We can fail. He will still love us, still wait for us to stand up and follow him. He can take flawed people and build the most wonderful edifice, a temple made up of the church, fit to be his bride.

This gives me a lot of comfort. Me, my intentions are always bigger than my follow through. I keep having to pick myself up out of the dust, but I get up and keep walking. I can be meditating on the need to be patient with those who grieve us, and then have my teenager to something that blows me into a rage. I have learned well the taste of the dust, and the grace of His outstretched hand there to help me back up.

Paul was such a focused bulldog in some ways. Once he was converted, he was an unquenchable flame, an intensity that most of us cannot match. Perhaps this is why he chose Peter. It's easier for us to see his clay feet.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I have tremendous respect for a lowly priest who rebukes an apostate bishop. St. Paul publicly rebuked St.Peter for much less.

Fr. Heidt is known and loved by many as a holy man.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

It was new to me also.

[AlbionGirl]

Did St. Paul go around yammering that St. Peter wasn't Catholic? Please, it's totally different.

You're free to respect him, I have very little reason to respect a not-so-lowly Priest, in my estimation.

My Priest has suffered quite a bit because he dared to rebuke my Bishop, but he did it the way a man does it and should do it. Leaving himself unassailable, and much respected by his Parishoners because he conducted himself with honor.

If a Priest talked to me like Fr. Heidt, I'd hightail it out of there, if I could, and find another Priest who understood what Honor is really all about.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Regardless of whether you dislike this priest for doing the right thing, the public knowledge of Archbishop Levada's apostasy is well known. There is much more out there than one holy priest's account. As I mentioned above, St. Paul publicly rebuked Peter for much less. Fr. Heidt had nothing to gain and everything to lose (and did) when he defended the Faith to Levada. As Catholics, we are required to resist priests, bishops and even a Pope if they lead us away from Catholic teaching. Pope Pius IX said so as well as others.

We are not doing Levada any favors by giving false obedience to his error. He should have been demoted and reprimanded for his evil behavior. We should work for his conversion or containment.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Did St. Paul go around yammering that St. Peter wasn't Catholic?

Yes, he did. He had a problem with Peter's over association with Jewish custom. Read Acts. It's the same situation.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Levada's association with the Chinese communist schismatic priests (and his defense of it!)

--

http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/cpa/openletter.html

III. WHY ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS IN THE UNITED STATES GRANTING
PRIESTLY FACULTIES TO PRIESTS OF THE CPA?



1. Background: In the United States, such as in the New York
and San Francisco archdioceses, Ordinaries have granted priestly
faculties to priests of the schismatic CPA. These priests were allowed
to offer Holy Mass publicly in Roman Catholic Churches and to
administer other sacraments openly in parishes. No specific mention
was made in parish bulletins that the priest in question belonged to
the CPA and no explanation was made about the schismatic nature of the
CPA.



2. Responses to our Inquiries: In response to our inquiry about
this practice of granting priestly faculties to CPA priests:



Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco, wrote: "I would like
to invite the Foundation to be more accurate in its statements
concerning the Church in China and in particular concerning the
priests from China who have been welcomed by the dioceses of this
country. The program of their [CPA priests'] formation and of
their apostolic ministry is being carried out according to directives
received from the Holy See." The archbishop does not specify to
which directives he refers.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

This was sent to me by a friend. It is a current situation in the archdiocese of San Francisco.

------

In The Wanderer, May 12, 2005 is a letter to the "Catholic Replies" section:

Q. At a parish in San Francisco, the full-time man in charge of the religious education of youngsters in grades K-8 is a practicing homosexual who lives openly with another man. It is difficult for adults to get into the classrooms, and our pastor is pro-homosexual and would resist any attempt to relieve this individual of his duties. We believe that he is not a good role model for our children and is not fit to be giving religious instruction. What can we do?

A. [Mr. Drummey gives the Catholic teaching on homosexual acts, etc. and also delineates the teachings on those in education. I won't transcribe all of those details, however the last sentence is instructional given the appointment of Archbishop Levada. Here is the last sentence:]

If your pastor won't do anything about this scandalous situation, then the archbishop should be contacted and asked to have this person removed from his position.

+++++++++++++++++

So are we now to believe that Archbishop Levada will do what he did not do as bishop of San Francisco????

--------

[AlbionGirl]

When searching under +Paul rebukes +Peter, I found something in Galatians, but not Acts. I will consult my Bible later, and feel free to quote Chapter and verse I should be looking at. But here's what I did find:

Galatians
Chapter 2

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

If this is the text you're referring to, I don't it at all as analagous.

[AlbionGirl]

Please see post 46, inadvertantly posted to myself.

[Thorin]

You have provided zero proof of "apostasy" by Archbishop Levada. Even Hans Kung said that he would give Benedict XVI a 100 grace period before he began criticizing him. You can't even wait that long. Unbelievable.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

On the morning of his election, Ratzinger had breakfast with four cardinals from Asia and Africa and also Roger Mahony of Los Angeles.

After yesterday I thought I'd heard the worst of the news. I guess not.

[bornacatholic]

He was pretty nice to Judas.

I guess this Papal election was just a sham scam orchestrated by perverts and crackpots headed-up by the still-then, Cardinal Ratzinger. All that talk of retiring was just a clever (dare I say it "devilish?") ruse.

I guess we were just fooled again and doom is cracking (apologies to Robert Byrd) and we are being revolutionized and queerized and the Church has apostasized and the faithful are being marginalized and terrorized and with some schism we must now identify.

Hmmm, I wonder if I can sell that last sentence to Jesse Jackson?