Posted on 12/09/2004 7:38:28 AM PST by AnAmericanMother
Oh, I'm so sad to hear this. I've had some computer problems this week and only read the headlines, but hoped it wasn't this. I live in Trautman country. Around Thanksgiving, we were talking about the multitude of changes, some conflicting, over the last Trautman decade alone and the confusion and exodus they have caused in local parishes. I had hoped Abp Gregory would be different. How sad, for us all.
I could add many to the list of bad episcopal appointments of JPII......these would include Mahoney, Bernadin, Law, Egan, Mansell, Keeler, McCarrick, and the list goes on. There is no way to defend these bad personnell choices in any way.
But we must consider timing in making a judgement on JPII. Early in his pontificate it could certainly be said that certain appointments, e.g. Bernadin, were made out of sheer ignorance......aided by the connivance of Jean Jadot or Pio Laghi, and other episcopal kingmakers both here and in Rome. So it might be fair to say that in those early years, the wool was pulled over his eyes.
Now in more recent times.....he tried and succeeded in making a limited number of "good" choices here and there. Minor victories.
But since his health started into serious decline over the last 7 or so years, I feel that he has been taken advantage of. Given all of the intrigue in Rome now, I do not believe that JPII is his own man........that is simply not possible. I think his "jailers" are running roughshod over him.
This is not to excuse him from culpability for bad choices when he was truly in command - he is responsible for what he has done. But, I feel that we also have to realize the reality of his condition now, and see that as a major factor in current things.
This appointment is heartbreaking. Atlanta. Christe eleison.
**This appointment is heartbreaking. Atlanta. Christe eleison.**
Indeed.
In seeking to diminish everything John Paul does,dis/misinformation is frequently passed on,on these threads,as fact. In your post you have made two statements that are not true,or if true,understandable in the light of other facts that have bearing on the event.
You state that Weakland was an appointment of John Paul II. He was not,he was appointed by Pope Paul V in 1977. If your recall both he and Bugnini were exiled from Rome after some scandal involving both of them.
The other case I have concerns about is that of my old bishop O'Brien. Our dead bishop Rausch died suddenly,three or four days after the attempted assasination of the Pope on May 13,1981. O'Brien was named interim bishop shortly thereafter,and in early November,appointed bishop of Phoenix. Since the Pope spent some time hovering between life and death and was readmitted after his first release,do you not think it fair to say that perhaps he had precious little to do with O'Brien's appointment?
If you are really serious about cleaning up the Church,you need to be far more objective and factual in information you present. If you are only interested in bringing down the Church then keep up the steady stream of negativity. Certainly you have heard about the boy who cried "wolf" too often?
BTW,if I didn't believe the Church was estblished by the Son of God, I wouldn't care. But I do believe it was and I do care.
"He was not,he was appointed by Pope Paul V in 1977."
You too should be careful about disseminating disinformation which may sully the good name of Pope Paul V (who was long dead by 1977 by the way).
Even if he was tricked into authorizing some promotions, the current pope has dismally failed the flock by keeping known perpetrators in positions of power long after their evil agenda has become obvious to all.
Hang in there, Atlanta.
"You state that Weakland was an appointment of John Paul II"
I did no such thing. This commentary is taken from traditio.com (as I explain at the start). I'm certainly not endorsing everything contained on that website.
Sorry,Kerry and I seem to confuse our Papal numberings.However,you need to also point out that your source was wrong in blaming Pope John Paul II because he was not the Pope who elevated Weakland. Weakland was elevated by the Paul of whatever number,who was in the Chair in 1977.
Well,then stop printing all that tripe that you now admit you don't claim factual. What is your point?
The "excesses" which led to Vatican II? What excesses?
When John Paul II got to the ball,it was stacked with "imposters". Among those were Bernardin,entered the line of successors in 1966,Mahoney,entered the line in 1975,Law in 1973,McCarricck in 1977,Keeler in 1979 (six months after he became Pope).Mansell and Egan were his own picks.
Thor,I may be over sympathetic to the predicament the Pope found himself in when he took office. I worked in Human Resources for many years and was able to navigtate my way through many difficulties with employer/employee relations by being a good listener,competent and well schooled in the area. However,I was stumped from about 1976 through 1986 or so, by infrequent but regulaarly occuring series of events or incidents with employee/management relations that left me scratching my head. Administrators and managers that I could count on to be just and fair would suddenly become arbitrary and capricious.
I am unclear on exact dates and I am not at liberty to discuss the paticulars but things happened that brought things to a head. Believe me when I say that I discovered absolutely and positively that there was "a tie that binds",and it was homosexuality/bi-sexuality and it went up to very high levels and there was little that could be done in situations where that entered the employment picture. Even after I discovered it,I was still often limited to trying to transfer employees out rather than remedy the situation within the department or unit.
I do not have the holiness,the intelligence or the charisms of the Pope so I am not absolving him based on my own inadequacies. On the other hand I only had to relate to a group of 3 or 4 thousand employees interacting with faar fewer admins and managers (albeit fluid). But I saw these people everyday and just could not figure out what was going on. The duplicity and deceit of homosexuals is almost beyond belief to an ordinary sinner like me. We need to work on getting active homosexuals and their sympathizers out of the priesthood.
"We need to work on getting active homosexuals and their sympathizers out of the priesthood."
How many priests and bishops will we have left?
Based on their actions, I would guess that we have a greater percentage of queer bishops than priests.
Realistically, how do we get rid of them? Is Steve Brady's outing these guys publically the only way? He has probably outed more of them than everyone else combined.
And is outing them enough? We are also starting to see outed prelates recycled back into the system e.g. Cawcutt, Ryan, Weakland. Can Ziemann be far behind?
We are not rid of these guys. They seem impervious to the ordinary bullets that do in pervert padres. To my knowledge, we have not had a single bishop in this country defrocked, laicized or whatever. We apparently need to find the figurative wooden stake and mallet. Do these pervert prelates know so much that they can somehow blackmail church leadership into inaction?
I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I can offer no rational explanation for Rome's inaction.
Frank, the reason this one hurts so much is that Wilton Gregory is VERY high profile. He was the head of the USCCB during the outing of the American Church's homosexual chickenhawking crisis. He was the only bishop present when the pope met with the American Cardinals.
This appointment tells faithful Catholics everywhere as well as the world at large that the Pope approves of the way this crisis has been covered up.
I am coming to believe if I were raising children today and lived in LA, Cleveland, Albany or one of the other hellholes of AmChurch, I would belong to a Tridentine Rite parish, whether it were diocesan or SSPX. This is a thought that would have been unthinkable to me even five years ago.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for your Son's Church.
What I was thinking of when I used that term, was that prior to Vatican II, the Church seemed to exist in a rarefied atmosphere, and it seemed the Chruch ruled with an iron fist.
We sure could use an iron fist right now, but that should normally be reserved as a defensive tactic, not an offensive one.
And in my opinion, the Church ruled prior to Vatican II mostly by instilling fear. The problem with that is that while it's good at instilling a sense of obligation, it's not condusive to helping people feel that they're a part of the Church. Vatican II did accomplish a democratization of sorts, which the Church was in need of, IMO.
Good point, and one I've thought of before too. But, do you really think the Pope is senile?
Following Law's ignominous exposure, he was appointed to head Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. Do you think the Pope was senile at that point, and not able to connect the dots? I'm being serious, not flippant at all.
It's hard for me to figure the whole thing out. Sometimes I think (re: Law) that he must have approved the appointment because he didn't seem indisposed at the time, and other times I come back to the point you made in your post to me.
I like your analysis much better.
After a while a pontiff gets a feel for how the system works. If it is broken, he begins to think about reforms. None of this has happened with this Pope. He continued to make bad appointments well into his pontificate.
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.