Cardinal Maida steps up to the plate

Catholic Light Blogspot ^ | May 15, 2003 | Cardinal Maida Anthony Padovano

[american colleen]

CARDINAL MAIDA'S LETTER

Reverend Robert Ruedisueli, Pastor St. Mark Parish 4257 Bart Avenue Warren, MI 48091-1977

Dear Father Ruedisueli

Recently it has come to my attention that your parish will be hosting Dr. Anthony Padovano for a full day lecture series entitled: "Finding Optimism and Hope for the Future Church" on May 14th, from 9:30am. until 3:00 pm. Although Ms. JoAnn Loria is listed on the promotional literature as the person responsible for information, I presume that you, as Pastor, have given consent for the lecture series. As chief Teacher and Pastor of the Archdiocese, I must ask that you cancel Dr. Padovano's lecture. I do not undertake this matter without due consideration for you, as Pastor, and the practical and personal difficulties you may encounter in fulfilling my directive.

You may not be aware of the range of Dr. Padovano's theological views, some of which are clearly in opposition to the authoritative teaching of the Church. Among such positions are his advocacy for the ordination of women and his view that the celebration of the Eucharist need not be limited to ordained ministry. According to the National Catholic Reporter (March 14, 2003, p. 11) he is a "National Tour Co-sponsor" for the "Rev. Ida Raming, Ph.D., noted Catholic theologian and women's ordination pioneer. Dr. Raming [will speak] about her experience of ordination, excommunication, and the future of women's ministry in the Roman Catholic Church."

Other doctrinal ambiguities concern Dr. Padovano's understanding of original sin, the virginal conception of Jesus, the importance of the physical resurrection of Jesus, apostolic succession as essential for the validity of Holy Orders, as wellas positions concerning contraception and abortion.

Most distressing however, is the fact that Dr. Padovano continues to celebrate Mass publicly at "The Inclusive Community" as "Pastor" in Nutley, NJ, although he was laicized in 1974 and married soon afterwards.

You may not be aware that Dr. Padovano helped to establish CORPUS (Corps of Retired Priests United for Service) soon after his laicization as an advocacy group for married priests. A review of the CORPUS homepage indicates active web-links to "Catholics for a Free Choice," "Dignity" and other advocacy groups which promote doctrines and social policies contrary to the teachings of the Church. I fully recognize that such web-links do not, of themselves, necessarily indicate any heterodox position held by Dr. Padovano himself on such matters. However, Dr. Padovano has identified Dignity and the Women's Ordination Conference, among other groups, as 'the synagogues of the renewal(National Catholic Reporter, November 12, 1.999, cover story).

In review of the serious concerns which Dr. Padovano's writings and advocacy efforts present, especially in matters ecclesiological, I believe that the potential harm caused to the lay faithful by his lecture series at your parish outweighs the potential benefit envisioned.

Pastoral prudence and my obligation as Archbishop require me to direct you to cancel Dr. Padovano's engagement at your parish on May 14th .I have asked Bishop Blair to be available to meet with you to discuss any questions or concerns you may have.

Sincerely yours in the Lord, Cardinal Adam Maida, Detroit

cc: Bishop Blair

RESPONSE BY ANTHONY PADOVANO

Cardinal Adam Maida Archdiocese of Detroit 1234 Washington Blvd. Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dear Adam,

Your April 28 letter to the pastor of St. Mark Parish canceling my lecture on "Optimism and Hope in the Church" left me perplexed and disappointed. The cancellation of a talk on hope in such a season of cynicism and despair in the Church is especially mystifying. Just thirteen days before, on April 15, your auxiliary bishop, Tom Gumbleton, who knows my work well, and I met in New Jersey during his lecture on non-violence.He told me he knew of my scheduled talk, was delighted I was coming to Detroit and welcomed me to the archdiocese.

I find the letter disappointing because there was no effort to deal with me directly.I was never informed of your concerns or invited to address them.Did I not deserve that?Is it really just, under canon or civil lawor even just plain human decency and courtesy, to criticize me in absentia in a letter from one Church official to another?Should I not have had some say in a decision by you of what I teach and what I believe?

I am writing this letter on Sunday, May 11, Mothers Day; the Sunday Gospel is the Good Shepherd.Such a contrast!I was taught to see the Church as Mother Church and the ministers of the Church as shepherds.How many Catholics today, loyal, faithful, intelligent, find such images alien to their experience of the Church, partly because of letters written in the spirit of your April 28 letter?

The charges the letter raised are so many and so generic that a defense would be a burden for me and would amount to an irrelevance for you because you have already judged me, without a hearing, from newspaper accounts, hearsay, and critics whose grasp of theology is often ideological or uninformed.I expected more from a canon lawyer, a cardinal, a colleague, a pastor.

The letter is astonishing in its sense of fear and misinformation.I do not feel anger over this, only disappointment.The letter recognizes "ambiguities" in my theology and notes that my writing is not necessarily "heterodox".So there was a lot of room for discussion and distinction and definition.None of this occurred.In place of truth, we got judgment.

Allow me to chose one instance of misinformation.

There is a citation of your being troubled by my views on contraception.Actually, I hold on contraception the same position found in Human Life in Our Day, the l968 pastoral letter of the American Catholic bishops.As you know, I wrote that letter and I included in it the rules for legitimate theological dissent, rules I have followed.All this was approved as the authentic teaching of the American Catholic hierarchy.In that letter, it was affirmed that a married couple might be faced with a conflict between papal teaching, the needs of the marriage and the inability responsibly to have more children.In such instances, they should address such "agonizing crises of conscience" with a certitude that they will find compassion from Church ministers and from Christ. Other hierarchies, such as the French, dealing with the same dilemma, asked couples to let their consciences decide the issue.

Indeed, as late as June of l995, some 52 American bishops asked for greater dialogue in their meetings and less fear of Rome as they discussed some fifteen points of contested teaching, covering indeed most of the items listed in your letter of disapproval. I suspect that the vast majority of priests and laity in Detroit think as I do on this and many other issues.

In any case, this is not a point-by-point letter.It is meant to illustrate briefly how differently you might have seen things if we had had a chance to talk before judgments were made.

I am especially disturbed by your use of terms such as "laicization" when the Code and Catholic teaching make it clear that a priest can never be made a lay person.I filed for a dispensation and I received it.I am always a priest.Why would such inaccurate terminology have been used in your letter, indeed terminology that is against authoritative teaching of the Church?The implication furthmore that a priest is punished by being made a lay person is offensive to every baptized Christian.

I am concerned that CORPUS is defined exclusively as an advocacy group.It was established as a place of healing and witness for Catholic priests who married, a pastoral resource for priests who were abused, in many instances, by the Church and especially by its bishops.If we call for a married priesthood, we are calling for something that already exists among Eastern Catholics and, in the West, among former Protestant pastors.Indeed a married priesthood was the norm during the entire apostolic period of the Church.

We need not go on, Adam, because your letter implies that you prefer to judge me, indeed to pre-judge me, without reference to my own testimony.

I am mindful of the fact that when we were students in Rome, authentic papal teaching moved in a very different direction from where it is now.Vatican II reversed this former teaching on many issues.Were the theologians who advocated their positions before Vatican II so much out of the tradition then?Or were the popes further from the present teaching than they now are willing to admit?

You are the Archbishop of Detroit and you have been there a long time.It astounds me that my being there for one day might unsettle the laity so unduly that you feel it necessary to prohibit even one day of exposure to what might be an alternative way of addressing our common Catholic faith. As you know, the lecture will go on, with even more laity in attendance, at a different venue.It seems sadly patronizing to be so concerned about the laity as though they are not adults.You are not concerned about the clergy although, as you know, many, if not most, think as I do.

I am concerned for the humiliation the pastor of St. Mark Church must feel at this public rejection of his pastoral decision to invite me to his parish and to his rectory.He knows the people of his own parish better than anyone else.He was not troubled about their hearing me.

The fact that this decision was delayed until almost the last moment, even though the invitation to lecture was begun seven months ago, is especially insensitive.

Adam, you need to live with the pastoral consequences of your own decisions.No doubt, you feel justified in what you are doing. The fact that so many others in your diocese disagree with you must cause you some concern.There was a more gentle and compassionate and Christ-like way for you to have handled this issue.The fact that you chose not to follow that path saddens me.

Dr. Anthony T. Padovano Catholic Theologian 9 Millstone Drive Morris Plains, New Jersey 07950

[Loyalist]

PING

[american colleen]

Well, the good news is that he's got Gumbleton on a leash at all.

Ya gotta look at the bright side of things, sometimes.

[american colleen]

PS. Did you happen to read the article in "America" magazine where Gumbleton advocated admitting homosexuals to the priesthood? It was a honest to God barfer. Surprisingly, "America" also had an article written contrary to Gumbleton's stance. Although the author was a priest and not a bishop or Cardinal.

disclaimer: I don't subscribe to "America" - I just borrow the copies from my parish priests but in return I give them "First Things" and "Crisis" and "National Catholic Register" in return. :-)

[malakhi]

PS. Did you happen to read the article in "America" magazine where Gumbleton advocated admitting homosexuals to the priesthood?

No, but I'm aware that is his position.

If I were pope I'd assign him to the newly created Diocese of Riyadh. ;o)

[ninenot]

Particularly helpful that Padovano provided a home address so that he could be reached by mail--just in case anyone wants to.

[american colleen]

How could you keep a civil tongue in your pen?

[ninenot]

As usual, you've managed to find fault with a Prelate.

I know who Padovano is, and I am well-acquainted with his Clintonian horsehockey tricks.

Since you state that you are a businessman, I think you VERY well know the reason that Maida WROTE, rather than called.

And, as a matter of interest, do you KNOW with moral certainty exactly WHO released Maida's letter publicly??

[ninenot]

Catholic Theologian

Regrettably, it is proper to refer to Padovano as "NON-Catholic Theologian."

[sinkspur]

And, as a matter of interest, do you KNOW with moral certainty exactly WHO released Maida's letter publicly??

No. Ask Catholic blogspot who did. Looking at all the links there, it would appear someone calculated that releasing both letters would benefit Maida.

As I said, I've got no affinity for Padovano whatsoever.

It's just interesting to watch our "shepherds'" selective condemnations. Not a peep out of this guy on Granholm. In fact, didn't he conduct a prayer service for her on her inauguration day?

Yes. I find fault with prelates because it's such easy-pickins.

Now you're pinging Black Elk, who will come on and take shots at my bishop.

Fine. As I said, easy pickins.

[american colleen]

Looking around at all the "Catholic Theologians™" around and seeing how difficult it is to get them to 'fess up that they aren't the Church and what they say ain't what the Magisterium teaches, it might be easier for a legit Catholic Theologian to change their title, so as to avoid any confusion. Like maybe "Catholic Theologian in the 2,000 year tradition of the Roman Catholic Faith" or "fully faithful to the Magisterium" or something like that.

I thought Dr. Anthony Padovano, Catholic Theologian™'s take on the Faith according to his "YOPIOS" explanation was very interesting. Incredible are the rationalizations some of us employ.

[american colleen]

I find fault with prelates because it's such easy-pickins.

I have no dog in this fight, but it would be nice to have some charity here. What Maida did was better than doing nothing at all. People like Granholm hold their views in public because of the "Catholic Theologians" like Pavodano who have warped Catholicism into some kind of "God is all forgiving, use your own conscience" religion.

Maybe Maida intends on confronting Granholm at some point. Who knows.

[ninenot]

Catholic Theologians are like economists: you can purchase any opinion you want. This has some resonance with certain OTHER, and much older, 'professions.'

[Maximilian]

This page has a pretty good take on him and includes his own writings plus a lovely picture of him with Frances Kissling.

Thanks for the great link.

[patent]

>>>Now you're pinging Black Elk, who will come on and take shots at my bishop.

Well, if you all get bored, you could take pot shots at my Bishop. ;-)

Truth be told though he seems to have a small spine recently, though I wonder if that is because of the rumor he is being considered for Boston.

patent

[Maximilian]

This is a man so proud of his religious heritage that he crisscrossed the country for years, drumming up $60 million to build a state-of-the-art Catholic visitors center in Washington, D.C., named for Pope John Paul II. As Maida unveiled the gleaming edifice last year with President George W. Bush, he was the toast of hundreds of deep-pocket Catholic donors.

First, let's give the man credit for cancelling this proposed speech by the laicized heretic, even though we may wish that he showed the same guts on many other occasions.

However, my teenage daughter visited this JPII Cultural Center in DC last summer, and she was nauseated. She said it was hideously ugly on the outside and full of heresy on the inside. (Sound like virtually all the Catholic churches built in the last 40 years?)

She was nauseated upon seeing Maida's handiwork, but I get nauseated when I read about bishops being toasted by powerful politicians and deep-pocketed donors. It's a sure sign of hypocrisy and even apostasy.

[NYer]

BRAVO, Cardinal Maida!

According to the National Catholic Reporter (March 14, 2003, p. 11) he is a "National Tour Co-sponsor" for the "Rev. Ida Raming, Ph.D., noted Catholic theologian and women's ordination pioneer. Dr. Raming [will speak] about her experience of ordination, excommunication, and the future of women's ministry in the Roman Catholic Church

On 29 June 2002, Romulo Antonio Braschi, the founder of a schismatic community, attempted to confer priestly ordination on the following Catholic women: Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris Müller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Angela White.

In order to give direction to the consciences of the Catholic faithful and dispel any doubts which may have arisen, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wishes to recall the teaching of the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II, which states that "the church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (n. 4). For this reason, the above-mentioned "priestly ordination' constitutes the simulation of a sacrament and is thus invalid and null, as well as constituting a grave offence to the divine constitution of the Church. Furthermore, because the "ordaining" Bishop belongs to a schismatic community, it is also a serious attack on the unity of the Church. Such an action is an affront to the dignity of women, whose specific role in the Church and society is distinctive and irreplaceable.

The present Declaration, recalling the preceding statements of the Bishop of Linz and the Episcopal Conference of Austria and in accordance with canon 1347 § 1 of the CIC, gives formal warning to the above-mentioned women that they will incur excommunication reserved to the Holy See if, by 22 July 2002, they do not (1) acknowledge the nullity of the "orders' they have received from a schismatic Bishop in contradiction to the definitive doctrine of the Church and (2) state their repentance and ask forgiveness for the scandal caused to the faithful.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 10 July 2002.

Joseph Card. RATZINGER,
Prefect

Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli,
Secretary

---

DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

On 5 August the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the Decree of Excommunication of the seven women who took part in an invalid ordination ceremony in Austria on Saturday, 29 June.

The ceremony which took place on a boat on the Danube River in Austria, was performed by Romulo Antonio Braschi, an Argentinian priest, who broke with the Catholic Church in 1998, and was ordained a Bishop in the Schismatic Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. That group broke away from the Holy See in 1945. The seven women, from Germany, Austria and the United States are: Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris Müller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Angela White. The women were given time to repent and renounce their ordination, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted that they have given no sign of repentance.

Premise to the Decree of Excommunication

In order to dispel any doubts about the canonical status of Bishop Romulo Antonio Braschi, who attempted to confer priestly ordination on several Catholic women, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith confirms that, as a schismatic, he has already incurred an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Decree of Excommunication

Following upon the warning issued by this Congregation on 10 July 2002, and published the following day, because the women Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Adelinde Theresia Roitinger, Gisela Forster, Iris Müller, Ida Raming, Pia Brunner and Angela White did not within the period that ended on 22 July 2002, give any indication of amendment or repentance for the most serious offense they had committed, this Dicastery, in keeping with this warning, declares that they have incurred an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See with all the effects established by canon 1331 of the Code of Canon Law.

In having to take this action, the Congregation trusts that, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, these persons may discover the path of conversion in order to return to the unity of the faith and to communion with the Church, which they have wounded by their actions.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 August 2002.

JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER
Prefect

TARCISIO BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary  

---

[BlackElk]

It is not hard to keep Granholm from speaking in her own parish. He can tell the pastor that if Granholm speaks again in the parish and all pastors that if she speaks in any parish in his archdiocese that the pastor (s) tolerating such will be former pastors and assigned to cleansing lockerv room floors with toothbrushes until death do them part from the earthly priesthood. Not that I expect Maida to have that much intestinal fortitude but we shall see.

Padovano is another one of the usual gang of convicted suspects. He thinks he knows better than his bishop and better than the pope. Weak though Maida may be, Padovano, at least, has no basis for such a notion. The idea that he is ENTITLED (no less) to speak directly to the cardinal rather than to an auxiliary is also laughable. Further, isn't Gumbleton a Detroit auxiliary bishop. I would think that Padovano might well prefer talking to Comrade Gumbleton to compare notes on why even AmChurch is not a suffcient disgrace already. Legends in their own minds, both pof them. Note the effrontery of Padovano's letter addressing the cardinal as "Dear Adam."

If Padovano is publicly promoting abortion, fronting for organizations fraudulently claiming Catholicism while denying dogmas, and preaching active heresy, Maida should formalize Padovano's apostasy with a nice brisk excommunication.

[TotusTuus]

Christos Voskrese!

Tony's reply letter is gag-o-rama material. Could spend all day striking at it line by line, but why bother? Deo Gratias that these attitudes are dying out.

A long time ago I read a simple little book that Padovano wrote in the late 60's, presumably about the time he was ordained, called "Belief in Human Life". It actually wasn't half bad. It was kinda good in fact. He apparently fell off the wagon, and fell hard. Maybe he'll get back on one day.

[dsc]

Whatever else he may have done or not done, and whatever his motivation here, he did the right thing in this case.

The Church simply needs to tell such people, "Scumbags not welcome. Honk off."

[american colleen]

Truth be told though he seems to have a small spine recently, though I wonder if that is because of the rumor he is being considered for Boston.

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO