Archbishop choice seen as imminent: Pittsburgh's bishop called top candidate

The appointment of Boston's new archbishop is imminent, according to knowledgeable church officials, who said that Bishop Richard G. Lennon knows he is about to be replaced and the archdiocese has already identified at least three sites that may be used for the announcement.

In interviews last week, church officials said they believe that Pope John Paul II's choice to head the most troubled of American archdioceses is likely to be made public this month, with this Tuesday the earliest possible date.

And some church officials privy to internal discussions said they now believe that -- even if the decision has not been finalized -- the most likely choice is Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh.

I recently came across a bit more ceremonial for Our Work which we will need to familiarize ourselves with. Thanks to Fr. Gommar DePauw of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Inc., 210 Maple Avenue, Westbury, New York 11590 for this translation out of the Roman Pontificale.

This will be very useful for the proper preparation of the subjects for their entrance into the Holy Piranha Baptismal Pool. May I suggest the Pool used be the largest of those new "running water" fountains mutilating our Churches? The peaceful gurgling brook noise these give off can only help intensify the moment as the Subject thinks back to his peaceful and long past childhood, a peace he will very soon never again experience.

Also, at the portion of the ceremonial that is bolded below, I entreat His Fishiness Pope Piel to add to the solemnity of the occasion by making this the point of application of the Abner Louima Memorial Toilet Plunger by Officer Volpe as Director of Pain of the St. Torquemada American Inn and Disposition House of Waywar Clerics, under the supervision of Calvinist_Dark_Lord of course; every Grand Inquisitor needs his experienced hooded assistants. I think the Holy Ghost inspired that the word "Rape" ("violasti" in the Latin) was not put there for naught, but for this very situation.

We may have to do something about intensifying the "light scraping" with a knife or glass in this ceremony too. Maybe heavy cutting would be more appropriate.

What say you, Holiness? And do I have the job of Master of Liturgical Ceremonies for these joyous celebrations yet? I'm very good with Books, Bells, Smells, and Maces - 23 years of experience!

DEGRADTION OF THE BISHOP
If the degradandus (the person to be degraded) is an archbishop, the degrator (the Pope or a papel substitute) removes the man's pallium (archiepiscopal stole), saying:
"WE DEPRIVE YOU OF ALL THE PREROGATIVES (RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES) OF THE PONTIFICAL DIGNITY, OF WHICH THIS PALLIUM IS A SYMBOL, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABUSED THEM."
Next, whether the degradandus is archbishop or mere bishop, the degradator removes the man's miter, saying:
"THE MITER, EMBLEM OF THE PONTIFICAL DIGNITY, IS HEREBY REMOVED FROM YOUR HEAD, BECAUSE YOUR EVIL ADMINISTRATION HAS DISGRACED IT."
Next, one of the assistants gives the degradandus the book of the Gospel, which the degradator pulls from the man's hands, saying:
"GIVE THE GOSPEL BACK, BECAUSE, DESPISING GOD'S GRACE, YOU MADE YOURSELF UNWORTHY OF THE PREACHING OFFICE, OF WHICH YOU ARE HEREWITH PROPERLY DEPRIVED."
Next, the degradator removes the degradandus' ring, saying:
"IT IS PROPER FOR US TO PULL OFF THIS RING, THE SIGN OF FAITHFULNESS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE SHAMELESSLY RAPED GOD'S VERY OWN BRIDE, HIS CHURCH."
Next, one of the assistants gives the degradandus a crosier, which the degadator takes from the man's hand, saying:
"WE TAKE FROM YOU THE SHEPHERD'S STAFF, TO INDICATE THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANY CLAIM TO THE PASTORAL OFFICE YOU HAVE MISMANAGED."
Next, the assistants take off the degradandus' gloves, after which the degradator lightly scrapes the man's thumbs and hands with a little knife or a piece of glass, saying:
"TO THE FULL EXTENT OF OUR POWERS, WE HEREWITH DEPRIVE YOU OF THE POWER TO SPIRITUALLY BLESS AND MYSTICALLY ANOINT, AND HEREBY REMOVE YOU FROM ANY OFFICE TO WHICH THIS POWER IS ATTACHED."
Next, with the same knife or glass, the degradator lightly scrapes the degradandus' head, saying:
"WE HEREWITH COMPLETELY ERASE THE CONSECRATION, THE BLESSING AND THE ANOINTING PREVIOUSLY BESTOWED UPON YOU, AND WE HEREWITH EXPEL YOU FROM THE PONTIFICAL ORDER FOR WHICH YOU PROVED YOURSELF UNFIT."
Next, the assistants remove the degradandus' shoes.

The Anathema Maranatha ceremony (ending - "Let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions. Amen.") would then follow, after which the Subject would be lowered into the pool.

This is a summary of sinkspur's seemingly defamatory contribution to this dialogue:

Three abusive priests were fired by the new man after Myers left.
Also, I read or heard that Myers just built himself a brand new $600,000 residence.
Why are representatives of the One who had nowhere to lay His Head still living like royalty? My own bishop lives in a rented house and can put everything he owns in the trunk of his car.

16 posted on 06/08/2003 5:04 PM EDT by sinkspur

That's Bishop Murphy, and Bill O'Reilly took off after him last Wednesday. As I recall, O'Reilly said the renovation cost well over a million dollars. And, he mentioned that Archbishop Myers had spent $600,000 on a new house (but I've read about that somewhere else, too).
It's a pretty fair gauge of a cleric to look at what he spends on himself. I knew an old Monsignor back in the '70s in North Dallas who spent parish money at the race track (and he had to travel to these racetracks because there weren't any in Texas at the time). If he won anything, he'd split the winnings with the parish!

18 posted on 06/08/2003 5:32 PM EDT by sinkspur

Mary Magdalen spent the money on Jesus; Myers spent the money on himself.
Conspicuous consumption by Catholic clerics is an embarrassment to all of us.

31 posted on 06/08/2003 9:33 PM EDT by sinkspur
BTW, I recall that Cardinal John O'Connor lived in the rectory at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
America's top cleric lived like a common parish priest. That should be an example for all clerics.

32 posted on 06/08/2003 9:37 PM EDT by sinkspur

Cardinal O'Connor's job in NYC came with an opulent and pricey mansion (rectory).

He lived in that mansion as head of the house.

He entertained dignitaries and national leaders in that mansion - in high style.

That was his job. He did it well. I find nothing wrong with him living in a mansion. I think it is fitting.

You can see a photo of that mansion above at #60 or so.

That is incontrovertible proof that contradicts sink's lame falsehood (and now lie since he has not retracted it and repeats it knowing that O'Connor lived in a large mansion much more opulent than anything Myers built) that O'Connor simply lived in a rectory, as thoug that were a sign of humility.

99 posted on 06/09/2003 7:45 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Dear sinkspur,

"What burden? That a priest not live as if he were a celibate Donald Trump?"

Tell me, sinkspur, what priest do you know lives like Donald Trump? Surely you aren't foolish or ignorant enough to think that a bishop's residence costing $650,000 is like living like Donald Trump. The Donald's TOILETS likely cost more than $650,000.

And you haven't answered the point that Cardinal O'Connor lived in quite a spiffy place, as well. And the whole bit of taking "one room" is a bit of a laugher. ;-)

Do you mean that he never enjoyed any of the other rooms of the rectory? He never used another room as his office? He never ate in the dining room? None of his meals were prepared in the kitchen? He never sat in the living room, or used the library? He never entertained, inviting his many friends and guests to this rather marvelous, roomy mansion?

By your standard, my wife and I are even more ascetic than the late cardinal, as we SHARE a single room in our house!!!

You ought to concede the point that Cardinal O'Connor was blessed with very comfortable living arrangements. And not begrudge our priests a decent home.

sitetest

108 posted on 06/09/2003 8:42 PM EDT by sitetest
O'Connor lived in a rectory, that was home to other priests and had been for years; it was likely paid for, years ago. O'Connor lived no more lavishly, as a prince of the Church, than the youngest cleric who also lived at St. Patrick's rectory.
Myers went out into the countryside and built himself a personal home, complete with pool, when other residences, already paid for, were likely available.
If you can't see the difference, then I give up.

111 posted on 06/09/2003 8:52 PM EDT by sinkspur
am glad to see that - unlike every decision made by the Klintons - for the archdiocese of Newark, PR is not the driving force behind every decision.
When it comes to new digs for the Archbishop or educating kids, educating kids is apparently not much of a driving force, either.

226 posted on 06/10/2003 1:11 PM EDT by sinkspur
Proving, of course, on this thin "evidence" that Archbishop Myers is a big-spending hypocrite.

Wow - you have it nailed.

(Funny, you have no details about why he change his residence, yet you know it all. You have every rectory and every chancery office bugged, I am sure. I would bet his former home has been converted for better use. But of course that does not fit into your scheme. I would even bet that a NEW facility that would accomodate the NEW use of his former home would have cost much more to buy or build than the home he bought.)

227 posted on 06/10/2003 1:12 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
What facts do you have:

about the new use for his former residence?
about his new home?
about the reason for the new home?
about why it is in a new location?
about this alleged pool and the reason for it?

Facts?
Any?
Any that are damning?

229 posted on 06/10/2003 1:17 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Please post your source on the alleged swimming pool.

Please post your source on the cost of housing in Newark.

Please post your source on the house being used solely for housing one archbishop in decadent style.

230 posted on 06/10/2003 1:20 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
This is a sound decision.

"Over the last 10 years, the archdiocese has spent $5 million subsidizing the school [Bishop Francis Essex High School]. Enrollment dipped to 273 students this year from 411 in 1996, the archdiocese has said. During the same period, overall enrollment in the 37 other Catholic high schools within the diocese increased to 16,477 from 15,945."

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Bishop+Francis+Essex+High+School&sa=N&tab=wn

231 posted on 06/10/2003 1:24 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
Please post your source on the alleged swimming pool.
ELS
Please post your source on the cost of housing in Newark.
ELS will have to do that. But the archbishop's house is not in Newark.
Please post your source on the house being used solely for housing one archbishop in decadent style.
Decadent is your word. I never used it.

233 posted on 06/10/2003 1:29 PM EDT by sinkspur
To: sinkspur
Get the facts.

The schools has drained $500,000 a year from archdiocesean coffers over the last 10 years.

This is a no brainer.

Other archdiocesean schools are increasing enrollment while this one's enrollment is sharply dropping.

Its called effective stewardship of funds.

Did he build himself a new house?
Did he buy one?
Did he buy an old house?
What did he do with his old house?
Is his old house being put to more efficient use?
Is his old house being used to house a program or offices, the facilities for which would be cost-prohibitive to build new?

You have no clue.

Yet you snipe about the bishop - not having any real facts at hand.

234 posted on 06/10/2003 1:37 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
If O'Connor had lived in St. Patrick's rectory by himself, I'd have been all over him. He likely lived with a half-dozen other priests and bishops.
If Archbishop Myers is living in his new digs with other priests or bishops, I'll take back everything I said about him.
But, I'll be he's not.

256 posted on 06/10/2003 2:37 PM EDT by sinkspur
To: sinkspur
I will presume from your postings that you have no idea who shares living quarters with Archbishop Myers.

In the absence of any such knowledege, you have gone to great length to impugn his character and judgment.

And now, you think it is virtuous to offer to take it back if proven wrong?

I see: calumny is fine as long as you are willing to take it back later if your silly wild-assed guess is wrong?

Wow.

258 posted on 06/10/2003 2:41 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
To: sinkspur
You bet against Archbishop Myers' virtue.
I bet for it.

Thats the difference betwixt us.

259 posted on 06/10/2003 2:43 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
I first heard of Archbishop Myers' home on Bill O'Reilly's nationally-syndicated radio show, last Wednesday. He mentioned both Murphy's $1.2 million dollar mansion on Long Island and Myers' $600,000 house.
As you know, O'Reilly has never had to retract a story. This is not "gossip."

266 posted on 06/10/2003 2:54 PM EDT by sinkspur

To: sinkspur
Oh stop pretending!

You can see we are not going to let you get out of the corner youhave painted for yourself without a sincere public apology.

You know Myers has a $600k residence.
Everything else is wild specualtion and gossip.

You are calumnous.

269 posted on 06/10/2003 2:57 PM EDT by Notwithstanding
To: sitetest
You and I are not going to agree on this.
The bishops I'm familiar with live in rented houses, or apartments in the chancery office, or in rectories, or at the seminary, with two exceptions, and in both cases, their houses were given to them by rich laymen.
I don't care why Myers built his house; he was not out on the street, looking for a place to live.
Unseemly is closing a Catholic school while building yourself a big house. Likely entirely justified, but unseemly.

283 posted on 06/10/2003 3:29 PM EDT by sinkspur

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.