Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Frank Sheed
Thank you!!!! for the link. Now, coming from the diocese of Albany (and feel free to substitute the names of those bishops elevated by Archbishop Jadot to their current status), there is a problem with this paragraph.

"The call to Orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior. Holding present the opinion of those to whom the responsibility of the formation is entrusted, the bishop or the major superior, before admitting a candidate to ordination, must reach a morally certain judgment on their quality. In the case of a serious doubt in this respect, they must not admit him to ordination. "

For more than 2 decades, our bishop has called to orders only homosexual men. Since the sex abuse scandal when it was discovered that in many of these 'liberal' dioceses, one found the greatest number of abusers, the bishop has placed a very heterosexual and manly priest in charge of eliciting new recruits. The very orthodox catholics distrust anyone who acts on behalf of this bishop. I know of one family where the son felt called to the priesthood, and he explored multiple religious communities before selecting the one where he would attend their seminary.

This will be an immense challenge to those who support a different agenda from that of the Holy Father.

20 posted on 11/22/2005 5:24:04 PM PST by NYer (“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: NYer
...the bishop or the major superior, before admitting a candidate to ordination, must reach a morally certain judgment on their quality.

I, also, find this statement just a little disturbing because it can cut both ways. How many good men are there floating around who would have made great priests were it not for the fact that they weren't "open" or "flexible" or judged to be "rigid"? The assumption of the document is that the bishop should be sure he's not ordaining someone with some kind of sexual identification problem; but, the fact is, bishops have been excersising this kind of authority for years -- they've just been rejecting the wrong kind of men.

24 posted on 11/22/2005 5:38:14 PM PST by Balt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: NYer; ninenot

>>>This will be an immense challenge to those who support a different agenda from that of the Holy Father.<<<

As NYer amply demonstrated today in her thread on Assisi, the Holy Father "nailed" the Franciscans who played fast and loose with Assisi as their own personal "peace enclave." To learn more about how tough this was, read Whispers in the Loggia which spells out just how much he smacked down these dissidents and what a master stroke it was!

I am not sure this is the final version. However, if Pope Benedict XVI signed it, it will not be trivial. He has not appointed one US Bishop to a major See as yet. It is believed that he is personally choosing each and every new Bishop himself as he knows them all. Also, his Curial appointments have not been announced. Finally, it is widely believed that Archbishop Levada was chosen since he wanted an American to clean up the cesspool here among the Episcopacy.

I think a bit of slack is warranted until some noted Canonists give us their take. In the meantime, I am hopeful and obedient as always to Peter.

Frank


29 posted on 11/22/2005 7:04:29 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson