[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Every time I went to see him, I’d go in and argue with him. I think there is only one pastoral letter he wrote, supposedly on the Mass and the Eucharist. I read the thing and I took it to his office, and I said, “Did you write this? Is this supposed to be a complete treatise on the Eucharist and the Mass? How did you manage to get through this whole thing without once mentioning Transubstantiation?” “Well, that’s such a long and difficult term anyway,” he said, “and we don’t use that term anymore.”

Meet our new guardian of orthodoxy.

[murphE]

Well, in my book that’s unacceptable!” and I got up and walked out the door and went home. And that’s the last one I attended.

Hey that's pretty much what I did when I was in a pastoral [mal]formation class offered by my diocese.

[murphE]

Then, I asked Fr. Laisney if I could help him out in the chapels in Portland and Venata, and he said, “Welcome aboard!”

I just met Fr. Laisney. He was giving a lecture on the Shroud a few weeks ago. It was excellent.

[Dajjal]

sad bumpus ad summum

[kstewskis]

I have this book, but haven't gotten to this part yet.

It sounds like we're screwed....unless the Holy Ghost hears our S.O.S. very soon.

[Diago]

I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger actually did want the job of Pope and actually campaigned for it. And perhaps, one of the deals he cut before hand was to promise to pick a liberal American as his own replacement. The same way presidential candidates pick a VP who will balance the ticket. This whole thing is quite heartbreaking.

[AlbionGirl]

“You know, that man isn’t Catholic. The Archbishop is not Catholic!” I was telling the whole parish this. No wonder he got so angry with me, in the end of it all!

I wouldn't trust any Priest who did what this guy did.

I live and worship in one of the most liberal diocese in the Country. Rome had to act before our Bishop could find the stones to banish a local Priest who tried to ordain women. He's got lots of women in 'pastoral leadership' roles, whatever the hell that means! He's as big a flaming liberal as you're ever going to encounter.

That being said my Priest, who has had myriad differences with the good Bishop, so much so that he was nearly thrown out on his ear because he dared to upbraid those who were manifestly guilty of Liturgical abuses.

He invited all of his congregation to do the same to any superior who they believe is concocting some Liturgical mishap.

But he would never stoop to such a level as to malign the Bishop to his Parishoners.

Levada may be a problematic appointment, but this piece isn't going to be the one to convince me of that.

[GrannyML]

Does anybody have a problem with this priest? I will grant you that he is well-meaning, but he certainly lacks obedience and deference. No matter what you think of a bishop, he does have the fullest of holy orders and is thus deserving of more respect than I see this priest giving him.

While this information may be disquieting, I am appalled at the way this priest badmouthed the Archbisop to his congregation, and it leads me to question the complete accuracy of this account.

God bless,

[sockmonkey]

The “next item” was his having gone to Our Lady of Atonement Parish – that’s what they called a “Catholic-Lutheran joint parish,” where they have a priest on one end of the altar and a Lutheran minister on the other, and they go back and forth. I asked, “What did you do over there?” and he answered, “We concelebrated liturgy.” “What does that mean?” I asked, “Did you and the Lutheran minister say Mass together? What did you do?”

Mission - Mission of the Atonement
Lutheran and Catholic congregation
7400 SW Scholls Ferry Rd., Beaverton, OR 97008
503-646-1344

I must confess I have never heard of a Lutheran-Catholic Congregation before.

[Thorin]

You might be interested in reading what another hysteriac who thinks the election of Benedict XVI as Pope is a disaster for the Church is saying about Archbishop Levada:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "From the perspective of society, the tendency to 'privatize' the moral dimension, so common to America with its slogan 'separation of church and state,' can potentially have disastrous consequences." - Archbishop William J. Levada, just appointed to be pope Benedict XVI's guardian of orthodoxy. Even back in 1995, Levada was singling out one political party, the Democrats, for censure. And, for Levada, church-state separation is now merely a "slogan," not a fundamental principle of a free society? Another sign of where Benedict is going.

The anti-Benedict and anti-Levada hysteriac I am quoting is Andrew Sullivan, who would surely be surprised to learn that Levada is part of a secret homosexual conspiracy to destroy the Church.

[Gumdrop]

Everybody calm down here. What we have is the report of one priest, who even though he is no doubt sincere, is still reporting on incidents as he remembers them. This priest does not have all the info that Bishop Levada had.

One of the most serious sources for eroneous reporting is when one side puts out a position as though that is the only side that counts. It sort of reminds me of an old saying that my Mom attributed to her Dad. My Grandfather used to say about a divorcing couple, "Well, there's his side, her side and the Truth!"

[marshmallow]

Happiness is bad news, right Deb?

It's a rough day for an SSPXer if he or she can't identify some piece of scandal or malfeasance, stretch out his or her arm, point a finger and scream "apostate!!!"

The idea of not rushing to judgement and actually waiting to see how he performs this job, would be too much to ask, I guess. He will be under Pope Benedict, who knows him well and personally and I'm praying that away from the morass that is AmChurch, he may actually blossom. It's happened before. Jesus chose a man who denied him not once but three times. Maybe, just maybe, the Holy Father sees something in this man that you and others don't. Hard to believe, I know, but quite possible.

I think by now, we've all gottten the message that most of the Catholic hierarchy are not good enough for you guys. The "woe, woe, thrice woe" schtick is familiar to most of us, I believe. Some of us, however, genuinely want what's best for the Church, rather than to see it crash and burn in order that we can say "I told you so".

[murphE]

From:

Catholic World News, 11/12/04

in a Roman café

The NCR's John Allen has a chat in a Roman café with San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, who is distressed by "aggressive Pentecostal and evangelical movements making strong inroads into traditionally Catholic populations" in the U.S. Why do these people bother to go after Catholics?

"These are people acting out of their own sense of the missionary apostolate. They are not people touched by the vision of ecumenism. They are convinced that Catholics are going to Hell and need to be saved, so they reach out to them." Can you beat that? These folks really believe that there really is a Hell. They don't want their neighbors to go there -- they're not touched by the vision of ecumenism -- so they put themselves to considerable trouble to reach out to them to save them from damnation.

Now take look at any letter, homily, speech, interview or book produced by Levada or by the USCCB in the past 30 years, and try to come up with a single example of pastoral concern that someone, anyone, may end up in Hell as a consequence of any action whatever. You won't find it.

That leaves us with one group of Christians who believe in the literal possibility of damnation (a teaching they have unambiguously from Jesus) and are thereby spurred to missionary frenzy -- and another group of Christians whose most serious moral concern appears to be Gender-Exclusive Language. Guess which group succeeds in speaking to the minds and hearts of ordinary working people?

Levada also made the news in his local paper today:

The founding chairman of a panel formed by San Francisco's Roman Catholic Archdiocese to look into allegations of priestly child abuse has resigned from the board, accusing church leaders of "deception, manipulation and control' for refusing to release the investigation's results. James Jenkins, one of six members of the Independent Review Board and its chairman until last December, said Archbishop William Levada has blocked the release of the panel's findings on sexual-abuse allegations involving 40 priests. Perhaps the two stories are not unrelated. The truly shocking aspect of the clerical abuse scandal for most laymen was not the revelation of the sexual predation itself, but the drowsy indifference displayed by the bishops in response to it: no rending of garments, no indignation, no flame-thrower reforms. Remember Levada's reaction when Bishop Patrick Ziemann crashed and burned after his catamite went public?

The archbishop described himself as a lifelong friend of Ziemann's and said he joined "friends throughout California and beyond in thanking him for the energy and gifts he has shared far and wide. Our prayers and good wishes go with him." Detect any awareness of a soul at risk of damnation there? Neither do I. It sounds like one Rotarian congratulating another at a farewell luncheon. On the other hand, the odds are increasing that Ziemann, in his retirement, may run into a Pentecostal or evangelical who cares more for his eternal destiny than his comfort. There's hope.