Posted on 10/22/2006 8:38:04 AM PDT by ninenot
Bought the latest Milwaukee Magazine for the "Catholics in Crisis" cover story. Among those interviewed for the story were Bishop Richard Sklba and Father Javier Bustos. The article recounts how Bishop Sklba chaired a Catholic Biblical Association of America task force that produced a 1979 report suggesting there is "no historical reason not to ordain women." If that's not enough, here's more historical revisionism via the article's interview with Fr. Bustos, who came here in 1995.
"But by the time the report was published, John Paul II had become pope and the church was moving in a different direction. Sklba, then still a priest, says he was pressured to tone down the report. He refused, and almost wasn't appointed a bishop, says Bustos. (Sklba confirms that he refused to tone down the report but would not discuss almost being denied an appointment.) In his office, as a bittersweet reminder, Sklba keeps a statue of the prophet St. Jeremiah shown in stocks and "punished for saying the truth." [p.55]"
Thus nicely exemplifying that combination of self-pity and disingenuousness so commonly encountered among our local clergy.
Here's Archbishop Weakland's account, from The Education of an Archbishop (1992), by Paul Wilkes, pp. 58-59.
"Take the appointment of Bishop Sklba. The Wisconsin province had recommended Father Richard Sklba as an auxilary bishop for the Milwaukee archdiocese, and in 1979 the word came down that he was about to be named. ... Then, between the time of the announcement and the date of his consecration, I got a phone call: The Vatican was going to cancel the appointment.
"Not long before, Sklba had chaired a Catholic Biblical Association committee that was charged with examining whether Holy Scripture precluded the ordination of women. In his rather lengthy report was a line or two stating that Scripture in fact did not preclude women priests, and pointing out that the fact that the Apostles were all men couldn't in itself be used to defend an all-male clergy. ...
"I couldn't let that [cancelation] happen. ... Cardinal Casaroli, [Pope John Paul II's] secretary of state ... asked us to draft some sort of statement, acceptable to the Pope, that would in essence have Sklba back down from his position. We drafted something -- not a backing down but an attempt to put Sklba's statement in the context of church teaching -- and the word came back that the Pope said no. We drafted another statement and waited. Dick was to be consecrated on a Wednesday. ... Finally, late Saturday night, we got word that the Pope had approved, but with the stipulation that the statement appear in the Milwaukee papers on Tuesday, the day before Sklba's consecration. Well, the papers not only didn't play the statement as Sklba backing down but gave it the angle that he stood behind what he had originally written. We sent the articles on to Rome, but, fortunately, it being the pre-fax era, they didn't arrive in time for Rome to respond. So, while Sklba's career was certainly stalemated right off the bat, he was consecrated a bishop."
Think "truth arbitrage". It's not a new or uniquely Catholic phenomenon. Here's an example from The Long Shadows of Lambeth X (1969) by James B. Simpson and Edward M. Story, their account of the 1968 meeting of the bishops of the Anglican Communion.
The unauthorized addition of two words, and women, in the bound proceedings of Lambeth X made it appear that the bishops recommended the ordination of women to the diaconate--thus implying that they would be in line for advancement to the priesthood.
That was decidedly not the case and subsequent investigation brought to light one of the greatest ironies of all Lambeth Conferences--that the Archbishop of York, who as head of the Ministry Section had suggested that the misleading words be removed at the time the Resolution was on the floor, was, by his own admission, responsible for later reinserting them when the approved Resolution was put in the hands of the printers. [p. 171]
I note those who say they want to advocate the ordination of women want to decide what arguments the other side can use. Compare Bishop Sklba's CBA report to this from Lambeth X.
Of the five resolutions (Nos. 34-38), the first was of basic importance because in a single sentence it swept away a longtime barrier: the belief that since Christ chose only male apostles those who followed in apostolic succession should be male. The Archbishop of York and his party consistently sought to downgrade the argument as "silly" and "insulting". [p. 188]
Certainly easier than showing that it's wrong.
The vermin are exposed.
Pray for Abp. Dolan.
So, what we basicly have here is Bishop Weakland admitting that he and his compatriots deliberately deceived the Pope in order to get Sklba ordained a Bishop. The question is then why did the Pope let this stand after he became aware of the deception (he MUST have found out eventually)?? Does he not have the power to depose a Bishop (or at least send that Bishop to the outer reaches of Mongolia as an example to others who would try to do the same thing)??
It would have been nice if the Pope(s) would have exhibitted a bit more leadship in these types of matters. After all, he IS the Pope isn't he?? I don't understand why modern Popes do not act decisively in matters such as these, when it seems that Popes in the past did. It makes one think that they are either horribly uniformed, are afraid to exercise their authority for some reason, or they actually agree with the one's they should be disciplining.
It's all about conciliarity, didn't you know?
Actually, JPII was not very enthusiastic about exercising any authority, and did so only when confronted by flagrant violations and only after much pleading had been ignored by the dissident bishop or priest. I have always thought that Paul VI, on the other hand, had no authority; he was clearly somebody trapped by his circumstances and Vatican politics, and I think he really was unable to do much about anything. Supposedly, the reaction to Humanae Vitae devastated him.
I think our new pope is a little less bashful about it, but then again, he's new, and we shall see how things go.
>> Does he not have the power to depose a Bishop (or at least send that Bishop to the outer reaches of Mongolia as an example to others who would try to do the same thing)?? <<
Not really. The deposition of a bishop is not at all an ordinary thing, particularly absent the violation of canon law. After all, with all the thousands of bishops, can you think of any who were deposed, except for schism? Even Cardinal Law was reassigned with his consent.
Bishops have apostolic authority, and unless they do something to nullify their authority (e.f., SSPX), they cannot are not simply "transferred" to where they can do "less harm."
This is not to say it CANNOT be done. Such things are like common law; they are usually not spelled out specifically. But to go against custom would be like FDR's attempt to "stack" the Supreme Court.
He did have practice as the Prefect of the CDF.
Target practice, I hope.
LOL! He certainly had the opportunity to learn who the problem bishops are. Most of them when in Rome on their ad limina visits would stop by the curial offices after meeting with the Pope.
Sorry. I will never understand why such pigs remain bishops and princes of the Church when they should be defrocked and ridden out of town tied up, sitting backwards on a donkey...
>> They "cannot" be transferred to where they can do no more harm, or "are not" transferred?? <<
I meant to say "are not."
But such authorities as the pope's are a little hard to define from a Western, legalistic point of view. We are so used to leaders doing whatever they can get away with, within externally imposed constraints. There is no-one to tell the Pope, "you CANNOT demote a bishop for such and such an infraction." So, in that sense, yes, the Pope has ultimate authority; only his own discernment, and not outside constraints from rival powers, limit what he can or cannot do.
But bishops have apostolic authority, given to them by the Holy Spirit. That authority is their own. And the church is a 2,000-year-old institution led by mortal men not gifted with inerrancy. Before one pope claims a power for what he sees as a just purpose, he must consider what another misguided pope might someday do with that power. Thus, most popes act with an extreme deference against claiming power. Or, to put in terms of the Lord of the Rings, while they CARRY the ring of power, they are loathe to WIELD it.
(Pope Paul VI, in my eyes, was a tragic exception, who wielded his power very dangerously when he suppressed the Latin Mass.)
I have read (Engel's new book--) that the Vatican actually asked a certain Bishop THREE TIMES to resign--but the guy wouldn't do it.
Since most of the Faithful ignore Bishops anyway, maybe it doesn't really make any difference...
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.