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

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

[sockmonkey]

However, now that the choice has been made everyone has started defending Levada. All of a sudden, in the mind of these freepers, he has been transformed into an staunch defender of the faith.

What little I do know of Levada's previous stint at the Vatican has to do with his work as a translator.

I do know that regarding ICEL, Archbishop Levada observed that "these changes amount ... to a massive revision of the basic ritual of the Church's Roman Rite".

In charity, I am assuming that his competency as a translator figured into his appointment to the CDF. Time will tell.

[AlbionGirl]

I'm well aware of bad diocesan circumstances, but I'll have to say no thanks to this brand of priest.

[livius]

I don't think that's quite fair. I was (well, still am) one of those surprised by Levada's appointment, but that was because what I knew of Levada, I knew from spending a lot of time in SF and seeing his disappointing performance as Archbishop there.

One of the really great things about our discussions on FR, however, is that we learn more about the issue from the posts of our fellow Freepers. People have put up links to his writings that I have diligently followed, and from what I have read, I no longer think that he is unorthodox, and in fact he seems to have pretty sound opinions on many things.

I think what you're seeing is people separating some aspects of his stint in SF - that is, his inability to stand up to the out-of-control clergy, his too great desire to get along with and be liked by media-popular figures like Swing, and his timidity about dealing with liturgical problems - from his doctrinal and theological ideas, which were probably the reasons for which he was chosen. (That and to give US Catholics a little reminder that someone was watching them.)

In Rome, he's going to be dealing mostly with other bureaucrats who are also chosen by the Pope and are not going to be hostile to him (and also over whom he has no authority, anyway). I think he will function essentially as the Secretary of the CDF, with BXVI remaining as the enforcer. This was the situation with the CDF until VatII, after all - the Pope controlled it. And the fact that BXVI originally had considered not filling the position to which Levada is being appointed indicates a lot.

Furthermore, people are hysterical over one breakfast with Mahony - but forget that the Pope seems to have regular contact with Fr. Fessio, who would certainly know more about Levada than anyone. I really do think we should all take a deep breath and perhaps turn our attention to speculating on who will be the new Archbishop of SF. Candidates, anyone?

[bornacatholic]

It might appear that way and that is my fault. My point to you was why believe the hearsay of a vagus priest that Bishop Levada is a wolf?

I took the occasion of the post to you to comment on other conspiracies appearing lately. Pope Benedict's reign has barely begun and a hateful, savage, scandalous attack is already being mounted by the Libertrads. I was responding to them, not to you who, obviously, is not a Libertrad.

I apologize if it appeared all the comments were directed to you.

[Dominick]

http://motaspirit.org/services.htm

According to this, this type of Mass is permitted, by a hair's breadth. Lets look at the other items this disincardinated Priest testifies to:

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.

At this point, this man who was incardinated by the Bishop, violated his oath of obedience. It didn't go the way he wanted. If he had misgivings, he should have not badgered his Bishop, he could have asked Rome, it was disobedient to conclude he was not Catholic on the basis of the answer he did NOT get.

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.

Again the Bishop is not only his temporal supervisor, he also leads his Spiritual formation, and here is the Priest saying no to the Archbishop, for a lawful order of taking course work.

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.

Thats right, Priests from SSPX chapels are suspended, did he preach the Archbishop was not Catholic there?

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.

NO this isn't the case, it was because he acted with a suspended organization. Leaving a lot of detail out in this "testimony" attacks it's validity .

I got up and walked out the door and went home

Well before this he left the service of the Church, when he broke his vow to his Archbishop, and to the Church itself. Some people need excuses. Is this the entirety of the allegations against Archbishp Levada? If I can succinctly state them, a Priest of the SSPX says he was tossed out of his post. This was also almost 20 years ago.

[american colleen]

However, now that the choice has been made everyone has started defending Levada. All of a sudden, in the mind of these freepers, he has been transformed into an staunch defender of the faith.

Nah, that isn't it I don't think. I believe that while most or all of us are perplexed at the choice of Bishop Levada for the CDF, we figure B16 knows him personally a whole lot better than most/all of us Freepers know him. Maybe he sees something we don't see or know about.

Do I wish Benedict XVI chose someone else? Sure I do. But are there reasons he chose Levada? Yep, and I don't know what they are but I trust B16 the same way I've trusted him since I found out who he was and what he does way back when.

We need good bishops at the helm of the dioceses and I am glad B16 didn't take one of the strong ones like Pell or Bruskewicz or Rigali or George, etc. Let's see what happens and continue to pray for God's blessings on these men.

[Dominick]

Do I wish Benedict XVI chose someone else? Sure I do. But are there reasons he chose Levada? Yep, and I don't know what they are but I trust B16 the same way I've trusted him since I found out who he was and what he does way back when.

Great sentiment, and I concur.

I think the habit of finding fault with Archbishops without posting some sort of basis has got to stop. He may not have been the strongest performing Archbishop for that particular explosive diocese, but I think that particular post is a lose-lose proposition. A new hand is needed, that will challenge SF without sparking those peculiar Californian lawsuits and causing a "progressive" persecution of the Church there.

[Wessex]

"No, just an ordinary Catholic layman from Cleveland who thought that John Paul II was a great, good, and holy man--one of the few giants of our age--and who thinks that Benedict XVI is a remarkable man who shows every promise of being a remarkable Pope."

You mean JPII was a good actor who liked a crowd, Ratzinger was and is a sly manipulator ..... and Levada an out-and-out heretic.

[Thorin]

>>>>>>You mean JPII was a good actor who liked a crowd, Ratzinger was and is a sly manipulator ..... and Levada an out-and-out heretic.

No, I mean that John Paul II was a great, good, and holy man and that Joseph Ratzinger has been a good and faithful servant of the Church, who did a very good job as Prefect for the Congreation of the Faith and who shows every promise of being an excellent Pope.

I put my faith in the Successor of Peter, not in excommunicates and schismatics.

[Dominick]

Levada an out-and-out heretic.

Prove it. So far nobody has.

[Wessex]

"However, now that the choice has been made everyone has started defending Levada."


Good point. The praise all of a sudden lavished on the Ratz before he has time to settle into his oversized garments is ear shattering. Now that Karol the Great is quickly shunted into heaven no questions asked the usual woolly minded among the Newchurch noisy brigade exhibit nun-like glee at every action now emanating from his tired old diminutive side-kick. Evidence of any heresy is quickly refuted and we are ordered to have short memories in pursuit of I know not what. To glorify the elevation of unholy men?

[Frank Sheed]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1403553/posts

Frank

[Wessex]

"Prove it. So far nobody has."

Proof enough from this humble honest priest. I have never trusted diocesan bishops; never have, never will. They are devils incarnate!

[Dominick]

However, now that the choice has been made everyone has started defending Levada. All of a sudden, in the mind of these freepers, he has been transformed into an staunch defender of the faith. Why?

AH, because if he is unfit for this position, I would like to quantify why. So far, people haven't been able to show why he is unfit. I thought it was a rumor, now that it is true, now we can investigate the real ramifications. We can't chase every rumor in detail, but I have been reading his writings this weekend, and I don't see anything heterodox in them.

Talk about Archbishop Levada all we like, and directly quote him. If he is a "heretic" it won't be hard to find words, Archbishops in his position are very prolific. One thing I didn't find, was a Gay ministry per se on his website, or an association with borderline groups like Renew 2000 or VOTF.

Pope Benedict had a reason, I would like to find the reason he chose him. I never saw Levada as a staunch defender of the faith, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right place.

So far it is guilt by association, and tainted quotes from years ago. I don't see that as major when weighed against Benedicts confidence he must have in him. If there is something we can produce, now is FR's time to shine. If there is nothing heterodox in Levada's writings, then why would we assume the worst?

[ejo]

Levada an out-and-out heretic

Running through all these posts, including the priest who had confrontation with Levada. I come away with a feeling that a great deal of ENVY permeates all. I would declare we, as Catholics, come to our senses and adhere to the Truth preached by the church....If at any time you feel disagreement then by all means SEEK a church that would give you the Peace, you so desire.....Why be unhappy??

[Antoninus]

This whole thing is quite heartbreaking.

Don't lose heart. In my opinion, the real question will be who becomes the next Archbishop of San Francisco. Based on what Fr. Fessio said previously, rumor was that Benedict himself was going to remain head of the CDF. It's possible that Levada was named as titular head of CDF with no real power--to get him out of the way.

If another AmChurch liberal is named to San Francisco, I'll be a lot more worried...

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Unless Levada has changed, this piece from Fr.Neuhaus in First Things (hope that's not too gossipy for our holier-than-thou crowd) implies Levada didn't appreciate Burke in St. Louis denying Communion to pro-aborts.

--

http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0410/public.html

Catholics in Political Life

Aspects of the new leadership were evident in the way the bishops addressed the question of Catholic politicians who defiantly reject the Church’s teaching, notably on abortion. Cardinal McCarrick had earlier been appointed to head up a task force on the question, and it was scheduled to issue its report to the bishops after the November elections. At the June meeting, he arranged for Cardinal Keeler and Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco to make presentations, after which he would speak. Keeler reported on consultations that had been held months earlier with bishops, theologians, canonists, and sundry lay leaders, all suggesting that it would be a big mistake to publicly sanction offending politicians. By the time of the June meeting, however, Cardinal Keeler’s report seemed very dated. Levada offered an extended pastoral-theological reflection, asking the question, "Who is to judge the state of a Catholic communicant’s soul?" He warned that penalties imposed on politicians or voters might be viewed as "an interference in the constitutional rights to political freedom." Moreover, he said, bishops should act together, since "the application of restrictive practices regarding the reception of Holy Communion in one diocese necessarily has implications for all."

The last observation was understood to refer to a few bishops, most notably Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, who had taken the pastoral initiative in cautioning offending politicians that they should refrain from communing or run the risk of being refused at the altar. At the meeting, there were some who wanted Burke put on notice that he had violated the protocols of episcopal fraternity by acting as he did. First in his diocese in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and then shortly after his move to St. Louis, Burke stood firm on the necessary connection between communing and being in communio with the Church, which includes not publicly rejecting her solemn teaching on the dignity of human life. Some canon lawyers argued that Burke had exceeded his canonical authority, but they apparently did not know their man. For five years Burke was on the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, the Church’s highest court, and he has mastered canon law in all of its sometimes befuddling intricacies. It soon became evident at Denver that the overwhelming majority of bishops, while they may not follow Burke’s precise course of action, were in no mood to reproach him or distance themselves from him. To the contrary, the final Denver statement, "Catholics in Political Life," was approved 183 to 6 and provided ample room for the approach taken by Burke and others.

[Dominick]

Proof enough from this humble honest priest. I have never trusted diocesan bishops; never have, never will. They are devils incarnate!

Humble and Honest are those who who holds your view? Promoting scandal that did not exist? This priest got bounced for cause...

I imagine you are not Catholic so this simply is a pointless discussion.

[Fred]

"The last observation was understood to refer to a few bishops, most notably Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, who had taken the pastoral initiative in cautioning offending politicians that they should refrain from communing or run the risk of being refused at the altar."

Praise the Lord, Bishop Burke is backing up the priests in his diocese regarding Communion for pro-aborts instead of wasting his time sucking up to liberals.

[american colleen]

hope that's not too gossipy for our holier-than-thou crowd...

I have a feeling that anyone who disagrees with you and the others who have their hair on fire about Levada being chosen for the CDF fits the above category?

I don't think anyone here is defending Levada against anything but I do think people are saying that maybe B16 knows more than they do.

I think there's a whole lot of people on FR who are pissed off (btw, 'holier-than-thou' people probably wouldn't use that phrase) they are not in the position to appoint bishops to the posts they want run in the way they see fit. In other words, there are those who really are their own pope and who cannot be humble enough to accept that they might not know the best thing to do in a given situation or papal appointment.