Posted on 04/15/2005 7:09:29 AM PDT by maryz
Why compromise to avoid a schism? Are we dialoging with the Devil?
Rome had no problem pronouncing Campos in schism.
JPII appointed most of the problematic bishops and cardinals.
Rigali isn't leading anyone. Egan, Mahony and McCarrick are in charge.
I notice you mention all VERY old appointments. As he learned the scope of his problems, his choices got better. O, by the way... Gumbleton was made bishop by JP2, and never got a single promotion under JP2... THe slapdown of Gumbelton was very definite.
Mahony has consecrated one bishop (except his own auxilary bishops, who were alldead-ended as auxiliary bishops). Rigali has built a network of doznes of bishops.
Oh, yeah!
Very definite!
He has refused to submit his resignation, and Rome, by its silence, gives its acquiescence.
Some "slapdown".
All made by the same pope.
Who was recently appointed head of the USCCB?
Rigali's command of AmChurch is non-existent.
Well of course she is.
There was a piece in First Things (in "The Public Square") recently about this. Fr. Neuhaus says that he has heard (from memory here -- I no longer have the issue) from several of the "good" bishops that that appointment is sort of the "last hurrah" for the Bernardin group -- they know they are losing and can't hold on to power much longer. We can only hope!
Obviously, I have no inside knowledge. All I know is what I read. ;-)
In 1968, a DECADE before JP2 took office, Bishop John Gumbleton was made an auxiliary bishop at the remarkable age of 38 years old. He has spent 37 years at that job without a single promotion.
Now, suppose you get a job with no real authority, but which is preparation for a higher position. 37 years later, you're STILL at the same position.
You read something terrible into that Gumbleton hasn't been relieved of his duties. What duties? Gumbleton never got a see.
Think JP2 is happy with Mahoney? Well, he has consecrated or co-consecrated one single bishop with his own see in thirty years as a bishop. 14 out of 15 of the auxiliary bishops he consecrated are still stuck as auxiliary bishops. That's not power. That's being the kiss of death for your underlings' careers.
Hubbard was consecrated in 1977, before JP2. He has not been promoted since.
Pilla was consecrated in 1979. He has not been promoted in 25 years.
McCarrick was consecrated in 1976. He now serves a SMALLER (although more prominent) diocese than he did in 1976.
Rigali, in contrast, has consecrated or co-consecrated more than a dozen archbishops, and three Cardinals. He is the American king-maker.
John Paul II did make appointments based on the recommendations of the heirarchy which was put in place by his predecessor (Paul VI; JP1 served too short). But he replaced that heirarchy with a much more authentic one. During his career, his appointments have become steadily more conservative.
Absolutely, he made him a cardinal in 1991.
And…
As reported by Catholic News Service on July 17, 2003, "The Vatican has recognized Los Angeles' new Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels as one of the largest and most significant Christian churches in the world. Less than a year after the $200 million cathedral's Sept. 2 dedication, officials at St. Peter's Basilica have added the cathedral's name to 29 others along St. Peter's central aisle. The churches' names are laid out in the marble floor of the world's largest church according to their relative interior length…"
I really believe the Gates of Hell won't prevail, but the gates of man are another thing entirely, Unam. That being said, I hate it when I begin to notice my own cynicism. It's not good, even when justified, so I really try to yank myself back to a hopeful outlook (which is essential if one is going to live the Faith) by telling myself, 'you know not only do you not know much, you hardly know anything, so pipe down.' And, most of the time it works.
Then I run into a situation like I did last night. Went home to visit my family for the weekend. Went to a tribute Mass for JPII last night, and left confused yet again.
Parish priest invited 3 local non-Catholic pastors to speak on behalf of the Pope. No problem there, even for the female pastor, who stood before the Altar rail, and bowed her head before ascending the Altar, in a genuine show of respect that even the Catholic parishoners seem incapable of a lot of the time. When she finished her tribute, and decended from the Altar she stood erect and bowed her head once more, before returning to her seat. She presented herself in an exemplary manner.
But I'm pretty sure the two male pastors were allowed to receive Communion. I say pretty sure, because I saw them stand up as people were moving out of their pews to approach reception of the Eucharist, they were alone in their pews so they weren't standing up to let anyone else pass by them. And I saw them return to their pews, but I never actually witnessed their reception of the Eucharist.
Then I saw an old classmate of mine who is the Director of the RCIA program there, a very knowledgeable and Faithful Catholic. She told me that our Parish nearly allowed a person who was not even Catholic to act as sponsor for a person being Confirmed. It was only through continued haranguing of the pastor, that it was disallowed. She led me to believe that he probably would have let it stand, had she not been so persistent in her demands that it not be allowed to stand. Same thing for a thrice divorced person who acted as sponsor for a Confirmation. She told the Priest that nobody wanted to be nasty to the Sponsor or the person being Confirmed, just to advise them that based on Church teaching, it was inappropriate, and then let the person being confirmed decide what was more important. The Priest evidently did not want to say anything for fear that the person would back out of wanting to be confirmed. How can we maintain any rigor at all if that is the mean caliber of the Priests that are out there? And, unfortunately, I think it is.
I know that part of the reason for the necessity of Vatican II was because the rigidity with which the Heirarchy approached the Faith was wrong, plain and simply wrong. We were led to believe that only Catholics were saved. We weren't properly catechized. My 1952 Baltimore says no such thing, prevenient grace and all that we don't know about the dispostion of another's mind, heart and soul makes it impossible to render a judgement on who is really saved. And that's just one item on the list of what was maintained too vigorously and too rigidly. I'm not advocating universal salvation, just saying that even the old Cathechism doesn't say what I thought they were telling me it said.
But this journey from rigidity to near no standards is just as harmful, if not more so, in my opinion.
If I cannot receive the Eucharist while in a State of grave sin, and must seek the Sacrament of Confession before being able to present myself for reception, how is it that the Protestant pastors have no such impediment? That doesn't make me question God, but it makes me question the Church, in a very serious way. And I really hate feeling that way.
how do you think they'll come up with all these conservatives to fill alleged vacancies?
Have a met a young (under 40) priest lately? That's the answer to not only your question but also the future of the church. There is no fantasy here. Take your pessimism somewhere else if you can't see what is happening.
You keep dreaming. I hope Santa visits you this year too.
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.