Posted on 04/25/2002 4:43:48 PM PDT by history_matters
When RCF first came out I fully supported the approach. The lay faithful gathering evidence on bad bishops and priests, and using it to remove the wolves. That is still a good idea, but the hatred and vitriol here show that RCF is not the group to do it. I can't support a man who acts like that. Challenge Cardinal George yes, call him names? Why?
patent
No need to get ugly about it.
It is not uncommon for a bishop to have important details kept from him. When you have Sister Femi-Nazi running the chancery and only allowing certain people to see the bishop, I can see how some bishops could become essentially clueless in some important matters. I know in our own diocese of Dallas we had a nun who brought in a sex ed program WITHOUT the bishop's knowledge and only by a miracle were we able to undermine her effort.
Bishops need to be extremely vigilant as to who is feeding them information. They need to be on top of everything. They need to listen closely and follow JPII. They need to know about every new seminarian and every priest serving in his diocese. To not be vigilant is to court disaster.
Our Pope is kicking butt, in case anyone has not caught it. It will be interesting to see how the Cardinals act when they come back home. Father Rueda set it all out in detail just as the homo's were pushing for welcoming arms in the seminaries. Let us pray that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and put Sister Femi-Nazi in her place.
Well, thank God he is. I noticed the letter to Cardinal George is dated March of 2001 and the general absolution problem seems to date back quite a while before that - I cannot fathom why there has been such a delay in implementing the teachings of the Church.
That said, I cannot condome Mr. Brady's language and treatment of Cardinal George. I completely understand his frustration, as I think most of us share it, but Mr. Brady needs to temper his language and approach.
In a way, I am afraid we will start to demand changes on the orthodox side just like the unorthodox side is doing. Whatever transgressions we encounter in the Cardinals, automatically we assume the worst of them - they must be in the "lavender mafia" or someone has compromising pictures of them, or they are practicing homosexuals. Personally, I don't want to get caught up in painting all of them with the same brush - I don't want to be naive, but I don't want to be an automatic accuser, either. We need not get shrill and loud and nasty about things. The first change should be in the child protection area - that needs to be settled right away ("one strike and you are out") and then, once that is settled, we should start to ask for changes from the clergy - Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. It is easy to use the Catachism as back up and sent the relevant passages with a nice but firm letter to the higher ups. Enough paper and they'll have to listen.
I cannot fathom why there has been such a delay in implementing the teachings of the Church.Chicago is still in a big mess. Cardinal George is a holy man and an EXCELLENT Bishop. Give him some time. In the meantime you may learn some details about the "welcome" he received from Chicago priests.
According to the facts presented in this exchange of letters, the Cardinal of Chicago has been sorely lax in his duties for his flock, with potentially tragic consequences.
It's precisely this kind of indifference to Catholic teaching (i.e., that not stopping General Absolution is no big deal and "has begun to be addressed") that has characterized the teaching arm of the Catholic Church in America since Vatican II, with a de-emphasis on the reality of faith and morals, particularly sexual morality, and IMO, has led to the current state of weakened belief in the eucharist, the Sacraments in general, the role of the pope, etc.
Charity should be bestowed only where it is due. Jesus Himself, on occasion, used far stronger words than Brady does. "Generation of vipers" comes to mind.
A GROUP OF PROMINENT Chicago priests has requested a meeting with Archbishop Francis George, telling the Roman Catholic leader that criticisms he has made during parish visits in his first few months on the job "left damage in your wake.''
George, according to their report, has been tagged by some with the unfortunate nickname "Francis the Corrector.'' The sobriquet refers to the archbishop's reported disapproval of some practices he has encountered, from the order in which lay ministers received communion at one parish to the absence of kneelers in a seminary chapel....
In addition to the communion practice and kneelers, specific concerns listed in the report include George's intervention in the debate in Oak Park over gay rights, his insistence that priests wear gray vestments at funerals and comments he supposedly made regarding foreign priests -- comments the archdiocese has since asserted were misreported....
"We will resist being treated as branch managers for some huge international corporation who simply take orders from headquarters, be that at the Vatican or at the Pastoral Center (which serves as archdiocesan headquarters),'' the report asserts.
I disagree totally with Brady's tactic. Cardinal George is a good man. He inherited tremendous problems created by Bernadin. The radical 'so-called' Catholics hate his guts and have worked intensely to ignore everything he says.Words of wisdom, brother :-)
He could stop general absolution in one day.He would if he could without creating greater damage. One of the reasons why so many Catholics left the Church after Vat.2 was the abruptness of the liturgical "changes" - things were done overnight and without concern for people's pace of adjustment. Cardinal George is wonderful Bishop and a true blessing for Chicago.
After such a calm response from the Cardinal, to speak like this to him "In this remark, your cowardice and insincerity are laid bare" is not the mark of a man with Christ's charity in him.This Brady fellow sounds like a lunatic in both letters, he must have been in the trenches for too long.
Boy, these are some serious issues the Cardinal should be commended for taking a firm stand on. I can't imagine how many souls must have been endangered by Mary Smith getting her eucharist before Bob Williams. :-)
George's intervention in the debate in Oak Park over gay rights, his insistence that priests wear gray vestments at funerals and comments he supposedly made regarding foreign priests -- comments the archdiocese has since asserted were misreported....
And on the one issue which was actually WORTH a hoot, the archdiocese backpedals from the statements -- the issue over Oak Park "gay rights." I'm sorry, this doesn't sound like a hard-core faithful Cardinal; it sounds more like the wishy-washy bishop depicted in the letters that started this thread. I went to the link you provided, and read it; and then it occurred to me that the one thing on there that was of substance that he had allegedly taken a firm stand on (earning himself what has become a desirable nickname from the perspective of orthodox Catholics) -- the school textbook -- he pleaded innocence and said that he was merely critical of it. It doesn't sound to me like he deserves his nickname.
Can you tell me some things that he has actually done that are meritorious, in your opinion, for holding firm to the faith? He obviously failed on protecting the souls of his flock, with regard to the General Absolution. And neither of the articles you posted really present anything of real weighty substance that he's had to take a firm stand on. What gives you the opinion of his greatness? (BTW - I know that my post has had some sarcasm in it, certainly not directed at you, but I'm asking this question in sincerity -- I would really like my opinion of the Cardinal to be corrected by facts that you can provide)
We need to get a big broom and clean out the stables, big time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.