I think he even issued a statement supporting the "husband" and the "probate judge" who murdered her.
This latest statement of his is contemptible.
Bishops like Lynch are why I was opposed to the canonization of JPII. A saint is defined as a person who, for at least a few years before death, fulfilled the duties of his state in life. JPII was criminally negligent of his duty to appoint only orthodox men to the episcopate—let alone holy, charitable, zealous men. He appointed men that he KNEW were womanizers and manizers. Like Lynch. He had UNDERLINGS wag their fingers at Weakland. He appointed Kasper—knowing precisely what a heretic Kasper is—a Cardinal because the German bishops’ conference threatened to cut off their subsidies to the church in Poland.
I do not doubt that JPII is in heaven. I just don’t think his canonization is good for the Church. Same goes for John XXII, and the beatification of Paul VI.
During the Sin-Nod, Lynch issued a statement that made me feel DIRTY after I read it. He said that he was pretty sure that he could not promise the gay community that the Church was going to recognize their unions as “sacramental.”
March 9, 2007
Bishop Robert Lynch
Diocese of Saint Petersburg
6363 9th Avenue North
Saint Petersburg, Florida 33710
Bishop Lynch:
Speaking on behalf of my family, my intention was to write you a letter subsequent to my sister Terri Schiavo’s death in order to explain to you why I hold you more accountable for her horrific death than Michael Schiavo, his attorney, and even the judge that ordered her to die. In something of a bitter irony, however, it wasn’t until I came across your recent article in the Tampa Tribune, where your own words succeeded in saying much of what I wanted to say, that I was finally motivated to write.
In the opening paragraph of your commentary, “The Homeless Are Challenge To Our Cities And Our Faith,” you said “The challenge of the homeless in St. Petersburg has made national news and it has been embarrassing to many people. I am convinced that both on Judgment Day and in history, we will most likely be judged not by the things which we might have considered personally important to ourselves in life but how we took care of others less fortunate.” A prophetic statement indeed – and one in complete conformity with the words of our Lord in Matthew 25:31-46.
You then went on to say in the beginning of the next paragraph, “The faces which may haunt each of us on Judgment Day may well be those of people who have approached us for assistance and were turned away.”
Bishop Lynch, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Instead of writing a lengthy letter explaining the hypocrisy of your words, let me just say the following:
The barbarism and nightmare of Terri’s two week death by thirst and starvation will be forever seared into my family’s memory. It is incomprehensible to us that a nation supposedly built on basic Judeo-Christian principles would allow something so wicked to happen.
That is, until one realizes that just as the Culture of Death made a triumphal entry into our nation in 1973, via legalized abortion, without so much as a whimper of protest from those with the God – given authority to stop it, so now our disabled and elderly are being targeted for death. The bottom line is, when apostolic grace and responsibility are abdicated, innocent people die.
Fortunately, my family was provided much needed comfort and strength by an enormous outpouring of prayers of support, including the unwavering support of the Holy See, which to this day continues to arrive for our family.
Even more uplifting are the stories we receive almost daily of how my sister has, in a special way, touched the hearts and changed the lives of so many people, not only in our country, but all over the world. So much so that there are efforts being made by people world-wide to promote Terri’s cause for beatification.
Terri’s legacy is one of life and love. Sadly, your legacy will be that of the shepherd that stood silently by as one of his innocent disabled lambs was slowly and needlessly slaughtered by removing her food and water – while you persistently ignored the cries of her family for help (”her family” being the ones who merely wanted to care for her.)
You should not need to be reminded of the many passages of Scripture that condemn the shepherds that “pasture themselves on their sheep,” or Christ’s admonition to St. Peter to “feed My lambs,” etc. As my family and I dedicate the remainder of our lives to saving other innocent lambs targeted by the Death Culture, I beg the Lord to spare us another successor of the apostles who would exhibit the same scandalous inaction and silence by which you remain complicit in my sister’s murder via euthanasia.
I realize that for the sake of my salvation I must come to a point to at least want to forgive you, Bishop Lynch, for aiding and giving comfort to the evildoers who took my sister’s innocent and vulnerable life (and yes, she was objectively more innocent and more vulnerable than perhaps any homeless person.)
The Catholic Church however, has spoken on Terri’s case, and she has decreed in favor of Terri’s right to life and everything our family did to try to save her.
Your behaviors, in contrast, have brought scandal to the Universal Church and to the faithful, particularly here in Florida. Your indifference toward the Truth is appalling, but seems to be indicative of the all-too prevalent corruption of priestly formation in the 1960’s and 70’s, so perhaps your culpability is somewhat mitigated. Even so, the fact of my sister’s murder under your “pastoral care” is a fact you should acknowledge publicly.
This season of Lent is one well suited to seek public forgiveness and make public reparation for public scandal.
At least until that happens, I regret that I must remain, as you said, the face that haunts you as someone that did approach you for assistance and was turned away.
May God have mercy on you, and may my holy sister Terri pray for us all.
Sincerely,
Bobby Schindler
http://bishopsblog.dosp.org/?p=6250
VIEW FROM THE LOCKER ROOM
A week ago in this space, I blogged about my reaction to the interim report of the Extraordinary Synod which had been working for a week in Rome. That blog, in case, you have not read it is available and entitled “The View from the Sidelines.” As you can tell, I enthusiastically welcomed the discussions which were taking place, the style and substance of the meeting format, and the marked changes in tone which were captured in that interim report. Now that the exercise is finished, at least for the moment, I want to take you inside the locker room and share with you what I consider the post-game highlights. Fortunately you and I can read the coach’s assessment (in this case, Pope Francis) and then continue to ponder the amazing two weeks. I remain as enthusiastic about the conclusion of the exercise as I was at half-time.
There clearly were two teams on the field for this encounter which I would characterize as Team A and Team B. Team A was enthralled by and anxious to play for and with Pope Francis primarily in helping the Church of the future seek out and return the “lost sheep.” Their game plan was aggressive, embracing and encompassing the lived experiences of the people from whom they came, and desirous of opening up a possible new game plan for the Church they love and serve.
Team B was also made up of those who love the Church but wish to play a more cautious game plan, conceding as little precious yardage as possible and defensively holding the line against what they viewed as an aggressive offense pulled together by Team A. The difference that I saw during “play” and after the “game” was that Team B said they seemed not to understand clearly enough the coach’s (read that the Pope’s) game plan so they chose to play it “safe” or cautiously.
Just about two-thirds of those engaged in the Synod were on Team A and perhaps Team B felt so outnumbered that they saw a need to engage certain sectors of the media to help them play the game. How do I know this? Take a look at the votes on the three contentious issues (gay and lesbian Catholics, the divorced and remarried, and engaged couples living together) and you will find a majority in favor of stronger engagement in issues relating to these groups but short, and in one case only by the Holy See’s version of Florida’s “hanging chads”) enough to keep the majority from getting the two-thirds necessary to include an even more pastoral solution into the “game plan.” On those three issues, for the moment, Team B’s strategy won the day, but for how long?
The long final message is a very respectable and responsible work product and it should been seen as provisional, just like the previous week’s summary of what was seen and heard in the Synod Hall was provisional. I personally very much appreciated the Synod’s strong affirmation of married life and its words of comfort and support to married couples and I think the over-reaction of everyone, perhaps even myself, could have drowned out the support for marriage and those who are engaged in it which happily is in the final document.
Now “the game plan” goes to teams (aka (arch) dioceses) throughout the world for reflection, prayer, and possible revision prior to “the Super Bowl” on marriage and family life which begins in Rome on October 4th, 2015. If those who will be attending the next Synod are listening to the voice of the Church throughout the world, the final report next year will look an awful lot like the playbook for Team A. I know for certain that my diocese wants to see some form of relief to those who have divorced and remarried and that would be true of priests, deacons, religious sisters and laity. They and I want the principal of the indissolubility of marriage to be retained and upheld, but there are ways in which the Church can reach out to great people who erred in their first choice of spouse and now find themselves in a loving, caring, mutually trusting and giving relationship.
I also know for certain that this local Church wants to see us welcome members of the Gay and Lesbian community. I cannot, we cannot promise them that we will ever be likely to recognize the nature of their unions as sacramental but if they are willing to accept that reality, then they can be full participants in the life of the Church. I know that many of my pastors have shared with me that Gay and Lesbian parents who have adopted children are wonderful, loving and caring parents and neither my people and my priests nor the laity wish to see the children punished by being denied baptism or the sacraments or being excluded from Catholic schools and religious formation programs because they have two daddies or two mommies.
I also know many parents who, while feeling some pain that their sons and daughters are “living together” with someone likely some day to be their spouse, understand they those same children now find it absolutely financially necessary to live together just to stay alive in the work place.
After the game was over last Saturday night, the Coach addressed both Team A and Team B in a post-game evaluation or “pep talk.” He criticized the more extreme offences and defenses of both teams and asked that in charity they sharpen their game plan for the Super Bowl next year. He chose not to hide the different strategies and statistics by publishing the whole Synod report and the votes for each part, including the three which were rejected by not achieving the two-thirds vote necessary. He said that he felt that at times some of the “players” seemed to be calling plays in desperation and desirous of winning at any cost which the Pope then said should not be a worry because he who occupies the see of St. Peter will listen to all and then decide for the best of the Church. What he was actually conceding, I think, is that certain of his players played as if they had little to no confidence in the coach. He used the very same words which I used in my blog on the interim report about walking sub Petro and cum Petro.
Finally, it was a great start to the “marriage and family life season”. There was a new openness in the Church and transparency has never been more apparent. That the neuralgic issues which I outlined above were even spoken of in public marks a new day for a Church which until now has thought that the best form of governance is secret governance. A retired archbishop friend of mine whom I respect very much said to me prior to the opening of the Synod that the “Church would cross the Rubicon at this extraordinary synod.” I think he was right. I think Blessed Pope Paul VI who envisioned synods as a manner of governance at the service of both Pope and universal Church must have been smiling from his place in heaven. It was collegiality exercised in its most pristine form and the resulting statement going forth guarantees that the next time the teams gather to play again, they will have had more time to pray, ponder and reflect on the Church in the modern day.
I have employed the image of the concluded Extraordinary Synod in “football” language because I think more readers can understand what was really at play the last two weeks. But I do not consider the Synod to be a game at all, but an opportunity for the Spirit to guide and direct the Church under the watchful eye and mind of our chief shepherd, the Pope, for a more effective spread of the Gospel in our day. Next October, you and I dear reader, will not be watching from the sidelines or the locker room, but we will be playing and praying for the Spirit of Pentecost to come upon our Church.
+RNL