The "Enforcer" is better...lol.
Posted on 02/23/2009 7:11:32 AM PST by GonzoII
MILWAUKEE — For a few deeply unpleasant days, the Rev. David Cooper found himself in the crosshairs of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
It was 2003, and the priest had opined to a reporter that women should be ordained. Faraway bishops rumbled about censure. Then he picked up the telephone and heard the baritone of Milwaukee’s archbishop, Timothy Michael Dolan. Father Cooper immediately offered to resign.
No, no, the archbishop replied, we just need to repair the damage. “He was very pastoral and caring,” Father Cooper recalled.
And how was it resolved? “Oh, I agreed to recant,” he said. “He effectively silenced me.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The "Enforcer" is better...lol.
Ping.
On matters of doctrine, the archbishop 59, adheres to the line laid down by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, including firm opposition to abortion, birth control, divorce, gay marriage and any crack in the wall of priestly celibacy.
Ummm ... no. Neither Pope John Paul II of blessed memory nor Pope Benedict XVI "laid down" that "line". That "line" has been down for 2000 years. Some of it even longer.
what a hitpiece by the slimes...
Zats my Dolan!
It irritates me considerably to read this stupid “line laid down by [fill in the blank].” It’s simply Church doctrine and all the Popes are doing is repeating it.
Even Paul VI, of less than blessed memory, repeated it in Humanae Vitae. The difference is that he never enforced it and the opposition basically drove him to his grave; JPI was probably killed because he said he was going to enforce it; JPII began some attempts to enforce it; and BXVI is simply going ahead and doing what a Pope is supposed to do.
Well said.
At any rate the NYT is bearing witness to his conservative credentials.
I haven’t paid much attention to Dolan since his installation, when he had Weakland in a seat of honor, and even complimented Weakland on the renovation of the cathedral—which was done in defiance of direct orders from Rome, and includes a grandiose portrait of Weakland with a dishonest plaque.
I would have been impressed if Weakland had been banished, and if Dolan had announced: I am instituting a building fund. I want to raise $15 million to put the cathedral back the way it was—when it was built.
A tried and true trick of the mainstream media to portray Catholic doctrine as just the Pope’s opinion. Dictatorship of relativism indeed...
I’m not a Catholic (yet, though it seems to be inexorably coming whether I like it or not). Nevertheless I’m going to comment on this by quoting my (also non-Catholic) father would say. He said that if people didn’t want to be Catholic, that was fine, but then they should just admit that they didn’t subscribe to Church doctrine and just leave quietly; they shouldn’t try to change the fundamental Church and its teachings to suit themselves.
Be a Catholic or don’t be a Catholic. It’s up to you. But don’t try to ruin the belief structure of millions of other people to fit in with your own transient desires.
You said:
“Be a Catholic or don’t be a Catholic.”
NAILED IT!
If this article is correct, Dolan has not yet got the point that Canon 915 is NOT optional, not a matter of style, not a matter of politics.
He needs to be reminded.
Help the following url go viral by including it in your e-mails and postings!
Exactly! Or -- as my sister once put it -- "Here's the rules. There's the door. What's the problem?" ;-)
Spot on.
Prayers up for your ongoing journey.
Rosemary Radford Reuther once asked and answered that very question: If you don’t believe, why do you stay?
“Because the Church has the Xerox machines.”
People who hate the Church stay because you can do more damage to any institution from the inside than from the outside.
For another example: Who is more dangerous to the U.S., Castro or Obama?
Got that right.
"A Genial Enforcer of Rome’s Conservative Line" = "A Normal Catholic."
Deo gratias.
The problem is that a lot of these people are drama queens and they want EVERYBODY to share in their very public spiritual struggles.
Others are narcissists who want the world to revolve around them, and are mostly incapable of real submission and obedience. Theirs is a desire for influence, power, and control.
Some are selfish; they want the comfort of being part of a community they have been in all their lives, and are a little afraid to leave it and take up with the Protestants, but they honestly can’t reconcile themselves to certain aspects of church doctrine. They try to change doctrine so they don’t have to leave.
And some—I think a very, very small percentage—have done a great deal of serious study and consider that there has been an error of interpretation. Then they have a moral problem to face: stay, and try to persuade, or go and let an institution they love continue down a path of what they consider error? But there is pride inherent in thinking you can or should change the entire Church because of something you’ve figured out, so those few scholarly and devout individuals have usually left quietly.
Yours isn't the first post I've seen wondering about this. I don't know any more than any of you, but I can't help speculating that -- maybe -- Dolan, in his pastoral judgment, thought that this would be the approach best calculated to benefit Weakland spiritually. From what I know from the news, Weakland strikes me as a vain, puny little popinjay (yes, I hate the word, too, but it seems to fit) and a more vigorous approach, regardless of how satisfying it might be to the crowd watching and cheering (figuratively) the "public execution" might have been more likely to harden Weakland into self-justification, bitterness and resentment . . . and his last state would be worse than his first.
But, as I said, I don't know either.
"He is no theologian,” said Professor Maguire, the Marquette theologian banned from speaking on archdiocesan property. “He is in keeping with church policy that theologians are to listen and obey."
Does the NYT even begin to understand the irony--- let alone the imbecility --- of this statement?
Your father was/is a wise man.
Alas ... the Christians that adhere to the same philosophy are also wise. However, it happens that the Christian Church has changed in many ways. Especially in the teaching of the Gospel.
Today they mostly preach the love and acceptance of others part; and ignore the parts that mention sin, punishment, God is not mocked, there is a hell, there is a day of judgment coming to all ... etc.
It concerns me that younger Christians do not receive discipleship in the Word of God; nor receive the full gospel message. One can sit in church every Sunday and never hear the deeper truths of God the Father, and Our Lord Jesus Christ. Half truths. Some worldly teachings on practical living has/is becoming the basic message from our pulpits.
Like Europe we are falling in numbers and attendance. We are very much like all the worldly people tolerating and participating in all things. As with Obama, change for expediency is not good change. MO
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.