Posted on 04/04/2006 5:19:28 AM PDT by sitetest
Thanks to the positivism taught in Catholic law schools. Maybe you don't know the law professors who sneared at the right-to-life movement did not, by and large, foresee the strength of the political movement against Roe v. Wade. In any case, a good tree surgeon cuts of the dead branches and casts them into the first.
I hope so, too. All I know is that Cleveland smelled.
Dear RobbyS,
Indeed. One could make the case that both GM and dioceses like this have adopted business models that mandate decline in "market share," however defined.
sitetest
Well, I think that, had then-Archbishop O'Malley barred Kerry from communion, it would have been an important step in the revitalization of Catholicism in this area, as well as the "right thing to do" on its merits. And who cares about the Paulist Center? They, like other religious orders, are here in the archdiocese at the pleasure of the ordinary. He could threaten them with expulsion from the diocese for profanation of the Eucharist if it came to it. Even Cardinal Law threatened the Paulist Center with dire consequences if they didn't stop with the consecration of pizza and beer, Oreos and milk, etc. back in the '80s. He also read them the Riot Act about the invalid baptisms they were performing about 12-15 years ago, and forced them to find all interested parties and "redo" them. Had Archbishop O'Malley read them a similar passage from the Riot Act with regard to Kerry, they'd fall into line again, I'm sure! ;-)
Massachusetts is, right behind Rhode Island, one of only two states in the country with an actual majority-Catholic population. Therefore, one might suppose that we would be a haven of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Yet, clearly, we're not. My rants on this thread today most assuredly are just the very tip of a very large iceberg. Yet, it's no accident that we have two of the most leftist, anti-life, anti-Catholic "Catholic" senators in the country, and probably the most liberal congressional delegation (ALL Democrats) in the country, too. The vacuum of Catholic catechesis and ethos in this state, from the Archdiocese of Boston to the Diocese of Springfield, and everywhere between, is directly responsible for this abomination of congressional "representation" we have. "WE" elected these scumbags, did we not? Often, not in direct defiance of Church teaching on the moral issues, but in abyssmal ignorance of that teaching. Whose fault is that?
Archbishop O'Malley owed his own flock a lesson in direct, hands-on apologetics in refusing the Eucharist to Kerry (and Kennedy, and the rest, but we'll keep it simple here), letting the political chips fall where they may. He would also, by so doing, be palpably apologizing to the rest of the nation for what we in Massachusetts were offering as a potential President of the United States. Bishop Bruskewitz and at least one or two others told Kerry he was not welcome to present himself for communion in their dioceses; are they the ONLY Catholic leaders in this country with the spiritual cajones to confront such pseudo-Catholic embodiments of evil in our midst?
The archbishop blew it when he quit the field without a fight. When he (occasionally) doesn't do quite that badly, he still doesn't follow-through. Take, for example, the gay "marriage" business. First, observe again the fact that Massachusetts is a "Catholic" state. Yet, it was no accident that the homosexual lobbyists chose Massachusetts as a battle ground to ram gay marriage through. Our clueless, pew-warming Catholics are easy marks for the liberal soft-sell, and the gays knew it. When the court pronounced their edict concerning the matter, sure enough, Archbishop O'Malley was there on Boston Common on a cold February day publicly denouncing the decision. I was there and saw it myself. Good for him. But what did he do after that? He had a blurb or two put into parish bulletins, but you never saw him again out in public getting "face time" on the issue with a camera and microphone stuck in front of him. He was done. He "did his duty." That was it. Perhaps he was co-opted by the gay network here among priests and others in the archdiocese. Perhaps he was cowed by the political pressure of the lefties around here. Whatever the reason, all he did was give just one speech on the matter, and then he was content to let the winds of change blow where they will from that point on. Maybe better than nothing, but as a bumper sticker might say: "What Would St. Athanasius Do?" We all know the answer!
He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by digging in against Kerry. Of the 1.7 million Catholics who are currently inactive here, probably a half million are disaffected precisely because the Church is perceived as spineless and irrelevant. Many such would have *run* back had they seen the archbishop take-on Kerry. And many others, Catholic and non-Catholic, would have been called to a little introspection in the bargain.
Well, actually, Mass attendance isn't as bad as you read. It's closer to 350,000 per given Sunday. But remember that this is in an archdiocese of 2.15 million Catholics (a figure down from 2.4 million not all that long ago).
Many of the closed churches are in the wealthy suburbs and don't even meet the archbishop's (and Bishop Lennon's) criteria for closure. And the inner cities of Boston, Lawrence, Lowell, Brockton and others have been decimated. Could *some* of the inner city churches be closed or consolidated? Sure. Especially in the absence of any real effort or concern to get people back. But not nearly as many as have been proposed. And, again, what if we *do* have a "better day" in the future in our cities, and the Faith threatens to start flourishing again? The dozens of churches built on the sweat equity and dollar contributions of our grandparents will be gone (not to mention the Catholic archtectural patrimony contained there), and we will have to spend many more millions starting over. I want to see the Church here divest itself of non-church-related property and truly attempt a revitalization of the Catholic population *first*, before even one church closes just to raise money for a debacle that was not even remotely the fault of the descendants of those who built those churches in the first place! Only then, in a realistically attempted but failed stab at rejuvenation of the Church, can church closures even find their way to the table for discussion.
I seem to have missed that altogether. (Was the Paulist Center advertising itself as actually "Catholic" then? Or as it now does, "a worship community in the Roman Catholic tradition" -- unless they've updated in the past year or so!)? And things are 20 years worse now in many ways.
You may, of course, be right. But no one ever called me an optimist . . . :(
Yeah, they've been notorious for a very long time. In my more masochistic younger days, I would go over there from time to time to see what they were up to. I've seen it all! Consecrating everything but the sidewalk outside as the "Eucharist"; having everyone "point and say" during the words of consecration; gross disrespect for the Eucharist even when they DID condescend to use valid matter; de facto "canonizations" for everyone from Oscar Romero (they even have an icon of "St. Oscar Romero in the back of the church, I kid you not!), to Marin Luther King; a priest (I guess!) dressed head-to-toe in a bunny suit for an Easter Mass; I could go on and on!
The baptism thing I alluded to involved using a non-Trinitarian form of baptism (Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier were invoked) even after first being warned to knock it off. Cardinal Law (of whom, obviously, I am not normally a fan) then ORDERED the Paulist Center to find every single one of the children and adults thus "baptized," and offer to have the rite redone. Some people took them up on the offer. Others, now aware of what happened as a serious problem, had the baptism redone elsewhere. But, doubtless, many were either too disgusted or too lax to bother further with it, seeing in the baptism just an excuse for a family get-together anyway. What about the souls of those involved? Outstanding!
The Paulist Center is the flagship moonbat church of our archdiocese, but many other parish ships sail proudly alongside under her flag. Would to God we had a hierarchy that took its spiritual responsibilities seriously with regard to such a fleet...
Do you know if the Paulists are like that everywhere or just in Boston? I've always wondered. (I was there once in the late 60s -- a bunch of us working for the summer downtown were out for lunch and someone had been run over by a train at Park Street; someone in the group knew of a "church" close by where we could say a prayer -- the Paulist Center. It wasn't even a Mass, but all I remember is that the place struck me as weird.)
I don't know first-hand about other places, but they *are* one of the most liberal outfits in this country, so it's probably a fair assumption. Let's put it this way: I doubt that they run their liturgical and catechetical affairs in imitation of what goes on in Hanceville, Alabama with the EWTN folks!
We have waited so long for this, and now I read where Bishop Lenon is the guy who vouched for serial homosexual rapist Paul Shanley.
LETTER FROM FATHER RICHARD LENNON RE FATHER PAUL SHANLEY:
http://www.letusprey.org/files/0001/RCAB_00655.pdf
I hope this guy somehow turns around my low expectations.
I'm truly sorry to disappoint, but those of us from Boston are just callin' 'em as we see 'em here. Of course, God's grace can be factored into things for his improvement, if he cooperates with it! Far worse ecclesiastical miscreants have been turned-around to saintly effect. We'll see if that happens here...
After putting up with Pilla for so many years, Cleveland deserved better than this:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories4/020503_lennon.htm
Armed with opinions from the Rev. Richard G. Lennon, the Boston Archdiocese decided in the 1990s that it was powerless to punish a priest who had admitted raping another man, and that the priest was entitled to a hearing on whether he should be restored to full ministry.
Because of those decisions, and despite allegations of inappropriate contact with minors, the Rev. John M. Picardi was allowed to return to parish work as a priest on loan to the Diocese of Phoenix, where he had moved.
Yesterday, the Phoenix diocese suspended Picardi from the Flagstaff, Ariz., parish where he was an associate pastor. A spokeswoman for the Phoenix diocese and the Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, a spokesman for Lennon, said the earlier decisions allowing Picardi's transfer will be reviewed. If they are reversed, it would be done by Lennon, the bishop and canon law expert who became temporary leader of the Boston Archdiocese after Cardinal Bernard F. Law resigned in December.
Lennon told the Globe on Dec. 18 of last year that he never had any documents detailing the offenses of any accused priests. But in a Sept. 26, 1995 memo, Lennon wrote that he had reviewed Picardi's file. A memo the following month noted: ''Our files indicate that Father Picardi raped the 27-year-old man and admitted that fact.'' The word ''raped'' was underlined in the memo.
Lennon also told the Globe in December that he knew ''zero . . . nothing'' about the extent of sexual abuse among archdiocesan priests. The Picardi transfer represents the second known case in which Lennon played a knowledgeable, if only supporting, role.
diago, what happened to Bishop Vasa? This breaks my heart. So when is Lennon's retirement date and who do you think might replace him?
Well...there ya go! Additionally, it's highly unlikely that his work as seminary rector didn't clue him into some of this; certainly he had to know about the large proportion of gay seminarians in his charge. And this, in turn, should have made him at least a "little" familiar with the cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia that the homosexuals churned out from the seminary were piling up. Before *we* knew what was going on, the archdiocese had been quietly settling some of these cases for years.
Ok, can I say that Lennon should request Laicization yet?
Lennon is only 59, you're stuck with him for a minimum of 16 years unless they send him elsewhere.
I wouldn't believe any "douments" submitted by "letusprey." This guy, whose name I am not going to reveal, and who is an alleged victim of clerical sex abuse has himself been accused of spousal abuse. His attorney, who recently assaulted a sheriff's deputy, has a poor record in court and has fabricated documents in other cases. This is not a credible source.
Good riddence! Too bad Pope Benedict didn't assigh him as Bishop of Kabul.
I know I am really late to this thread (I was off for lent), but your post about the new Bishop of Cleveland, scares the poop out of me.
I really want to move back home....
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.