Posted on 09/15/2009 2:01:01 PM PDT by Pyro7480
NCR published a letter from a priest of the Kansas City, MO diocese, Fr. Michael Gillgannon to Bishop Finn.
The letter reveals the thought processes and categories of the deeply entrenched left-leaning Catholic liberal democrat now evolving into a mean-spirited whiner in the face of a shifting American episcopate.
Fr. Gillgannon’s letter is far too long, and not always very interesting since it is pretty much a recitation of the left’s talking points. I won’t do a full fisk here. But there are a few passages to highlight. First, however, let’s see NCR’s intro about who the writer is, before the text of Fr. Gillgannon’s letter which they (but not I) print in full.
My emphases and comments.
Kansas City-St. Joesph diocese priest criticizes his bishop’s leadership
By Thomas C. Fox
Created Sep 15, 2009
Michael GillgannonMichael GillgannonFather Michael J. Gillgannon, a widely respected missionary priest of the diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, has written an open letter to his bishop, Robert W. Finn, taking strong exception to his leadership.
....
Ordained in 1958, Gillgannon began his career in campus ministry in 1962 at Western Missouri State University. In 1966, he served on the advisory committee of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference for the post-Vatican II reorganization of Catholic Campus Ministry in the United States. [And wow! Has that been great!] Since 1974, he has worked as a missionary in La Paz, serving as pastor of San Antonio Parish, as episcopal vicar of the Eastern Deanery of La Paz, and as national chaplain for Bolivian Campus Ministry. He is the founder and director of campus ministry for the La Paz, Bolivia Archdiocese and and occasional writer for NCR.
September 11, 2009
Dear Bishop Finn,
Greetings from Bolivia. ...
...
... You have made many changes in the diocese since you came with a particular agenda. You appear to me and many priests of my generation who lived the Spirit filled days of Vatican II as one whose task is to reverse the changes of that great event. You have given the impression that your changes were for the sake of a narrow “orthodoxy” which seems to imply that the bishops and priests and laity before you were not orthodox. [If the shoe fits, Father, if the shoe fits… It is clear, however, that the writer is wholly convinced and entrenched in his position and that he belongs to the "rupture" crowd, not the "continuity" contingent.]
... You give the impression you are not working from a pastoral model of unity with respect for diversity, a more traditional Catholic practice, but from an ideological desire for a narrow uniformity and an even narrower spirituality.
More recently, however, I have been deeply concerned by your pastoral document, co-authored with Archbishop Naumann, on health care in the United States. Many priests and laypeople have wondered about your applications of the principles of Subsidiarity and Personal Responsibility. [And here is a talking point straight from Pres. Obama’s stump speeches… which POTUS himself is now backing away from…] 47,000,000 citizens in the world’s richest country are without health care. The national arguments for change have been going on for years. We cannot leave those poor without care. Your document seems to say the poor must fend for themselves and take better care of themselves. [Nice way to talk to the bishop, right?] ...
...
Another problem of concern is the pastoral document on the 2008 elections you authored. You, Bishop, and many bishops of your generation, [Remember McBrien’s whine about the change in the episcopate? This is a serious nightmare for the editors of the NCR, it seems. They are obsessed with this.] seem to be proposing [wait for the cliche…] a one-issue public dialogue on political candidates and platforms which deny the Catholic Tradition of social teaching on a wide range of issues expressed in the Seamless Garment social teachings of Cardinal Bernardin and his generation of prelates. [What a revealing phrase that was!] And which I was taught in the seminary of the ‘50s and later in the documents of Vatican II. [Note how the writer puts all these on pretty much the same level.]
Later when some 60 or so Catholic Bishops of your generation condemned [gasp] the new president on pro-life issues you failed as teachers. [Nice, huh? Remember, this is a priest writing to his own diocesan bishop in a "Catholic" newspaper published in that same diocese and then distributed in print and on the internet. This is public.] Your style and your strategy finds resonance with [cliche alert] only a small segment of the Church [I have written about this tactic several times. Liberals of the McBrien and NCR stamp will always try to minimize the numbers of those who are conservative of traditional. It is an attempt to trivialize the opposition and give more weight to their own positions.] and the wider American public you would like to influence. You may think of yourself and the others as defending human life by speaking the “truth” to power but you seem to most of us as pushing your own political agenda [You knew it had to happen. The writer’s letter sounds as if it were written with talking points from ACORN and the DNC, but it is the bishop who is being political!] and not the wisdom of Catholic teaching. [Which he knows and the bishop obviously doesn’t.] And worse, you give the impression that those who disagree with you are opposed to the defense of life. [Remember: this guy is a Bernardin/McBrien/Reese/Kmiec Catholic.]
[Now, watch this….] How pro-life have you been on Iraq and Afghanistan? Have you questioned the new American practice of hiring the poor and the marginalized without other job opportunities as mercenaries to fight and die in our wars? ... Have you formed Catholic consciences on war and armaments and national defense budgets? [blah blah]
...
We have many wonderful values in our Church and in our country. But our civil and ecclesial divisions and the acerbic and accusatory tenor of our dialogues could end our acceptance of others and respect for difference. [Look who’s talking!] Particularly when ideologies replace reasoned pragmatic, but ethical, solutions. [Put down your coffee amd read this next part with amazement…] You do not have a coherent or compelling vision of Church teaching or of pastoral strategies that can convert people and change their attitudes and actions. That is why your leadership, and that of many other American Bishops, is questioned so deeply. Our church is more divided among leadership and faithful than at any time in my life of 76 years, and 51 years as a priest. We have to ask ourselves why so many Catholics are leaving the Church. Are they sinners? Or searchers? A search to which our in-house quarrels have not responded. [Sounds like the same message NCR pushed through McBrien, right?]
...
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Michael J. Gillgannon
First, were I this priest’s bishop, I would be very tempted to suspend him if he did not issue a public apology in the same newspaper. I would suspend him because of his public show of disrespect, amounting to an attack on the character of the bishop. It is a clear attempt to undermine the bishop’s authority in his diocese, and harm his reputation in a contumacious way. Had this letter been private, I would not go that far. It is also possible that the priest in question wasn’t fully cognizant of what he was doing. That would have to be assessed as well.
Second, I understand that Bishop Finn is a kind soul, but I wonder how much longer he will put up with the National Catholic Reporter before he does something about it using the word "Catholic" in its name.
Third, NCR is filled with boot-shaking, pants-wetting, blood-chilling terror at what is happening in the episcopate of the Church in the United States.
Lastly, shame on the editors of the NCR for using this old priest, for their own hateful purposes. Shame on them. Even the the priest was a willing victim, shame on them.
Catholic ping!
They do not have health INSURANCE. They can have health care at any emergency room IMMEDIATELY.
Or they could make an appointment with a doctor and pay cash or write a check or use a credit card. Or they could go to a city or county public health department, for things such as vaccinations.
Thomas Sowell always makes a point of saying “medical insurance” or “medical treatment,” rather than “health care.”
They've read the writing on the wall which says "your days are numbered".
How pro-life have you been on Iraq and Afghanistan? Have you questioned the new American practice of hiring the poor and the marginalized without other job opportunities as mercenaries to fight and die in our wars?
Attn Fr. Gillgannon - without life, there would be no "hiring", be it by the military, rag journals like NCR or any other corporation, government or organization. Without life .... these issues become moot.
I'm sick of the phrase "S(s)pirit filled" ... it seems to have become (if it was not always) the last, and sometimes the first, refuge of the scoundrel. By claiming that someone, or something, is "spirit filled" one deifies it and places it (theoretically) beyond criticism ...
As for Vatican II? I lived those days, too ... and the "spirit" which "filled" them was not holy.
I hadn't read that far. Bleep you, "Father," and I'd add, "I hope you die," except that you might actually be doing something toward providing sanitary bathroom facilities for my brethren in Bolivia.
Gosh, that sounds like a pretty good description of satan, himself, he will lose in the end.
The equivalent of racist for the 0bama administration. It implies that if you disagree with a “spirit filled” person, you are actually disagreeing with the Holy Spirit.
I actually believe that they may be filled with evil spirits.
“We have to ask ourselves why so many Catholics are leaving the Church. Are they sinners? Or searchers?”
What they are is poorly catechized. And it’s your fault Father. Yours, and that of other people like you.
Its a real shame, P, how secular American politics seem to have infected the Latin Church here. As that former bishop Martino found out, no good comes of it for the hierarchs, the clergy or the laity.
to take other people's property violently and against justice, in the exercise of public authority, is to act unlawfully and to be guilty of robbery; and whoever does so is bound to restitution.
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.
it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.
Thomas Sowell probably wouldn’t argue with that.
When will the Catholic left realize that Christ is not Caeser. He could have come as Caeser had He wanted to but didn’t. Forced charity is an oxymoron and one of the most profound evils that the left promotes.
Right ... you've said it a bit more clearly than I did. That "spirit-filled" bit almost seems a bit blasphemous.
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.