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

Boston Globe ^ | June 8, 2003 | Walter V. Robinson and Michael Rezendes

[tridentine]

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.

[Notwithstanding]

His persistent deceit is not of Jesus. And it is something for which I have no tolerance.

[Notwithstanding]

Yes, for you it really is all about what other people think:

"sink is not a sycophant - in fact he sitcks IT to the hierarchy GOOD (nevermind that he perniciously maligns and impugns the bishops even when to do so requires the sin of presuming the worst about their character) wow he is one cool guy - no suck up Catholic that sink - what a moderate"

[sinkspur]

Is it fitting to live an ascetic life? It can be. But it is not required.

If priests of Christ make no attempt to live ascetically, then nobody else will.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

"If priests of Christ make no attempt to live ascetically, then nobody else will."

LOL. Do you think it is fair for a married priest to force his wife and children to live ascetically?

But if he, a priest of Christ, won't live ascetically, who will??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Notwithstanding,

You judge sinkspur more harshly than I think the facts warrant. You fail to give him any benefit of the doubt.

I think he's wrong his fair share of the time. I think he sometimes gets facts a bit off, or even more than a bit off. But failing direct evidence of intentional deceit, it is wrong to impute the intention of deceit to another where he may just be wrong.

As well, taking into account all the interactions I've had with sinkspur, to me the evidence weighs against the thought that he is intentionally deceitful. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see a good heart, and a good Catholic, even if sometimes in error. I'm pretty sure he's a better man than I am.

But frankly, you cut sinkspur less slack than I cut the schismatics. Lighten up.


sitetest

[Notwithstanding]

This is strange coming from you - who regards asceticism as an imposition when it comes to the ascetic discipline of celibacy.

The custom is that normally only those who choose to bind themselves to a specific manifestation of asceticism - celibacy - can be ordained as preists. There is no custom that priests bind themselves to ALL aspects of asceticism.

Why would you impose such a heavy burden on a priest?

[drstevej]

***LOL. Do you think it is fair for a married priest to force his wife and children to live ascetically?***

Wait till he meets Ms. Pope Piel and two popesters. Large walk-in closets for Mrs. P wardrobe, a hitech surround sound & hi def TV in the Sistine Chapel, plus a primo 3 par golf course on the Vatican lawn. --- for starters.

I will go easy on the gold -- too gawdy.

[Notwithstanding]

Its the constant armchair sniping as though he has all the answers, combined with the peristent lies even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence proving him wrong.

Its a pattern.

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

I see many schisms abrewin' during your "pontificate".

Heck, if the SSPX decide you're a heretic, for once, they'll be right! ;-)


sitetest

[Notwithstanding]

Its his assumption of an imaginary cathedra from which he makes his ipsidixisms.

[drstevej]

***I see many schisms abrewin' during your "pontificate".***

We [Protestants] do schism right!

***Heck, if the SSPX decide you're a heretic, for once, they'll be right! ;-)***

Thus you will be in agreement with the SSPX making Pope Piel I the great uniter?

[Notwithstanding]

Sinkspur has gone on record advocating seemingly mandatory asceticism for clergy!

See his #84 & my #87.

[sitetest]

Dear Notwithstanding,

"Its the constant armchair sniping as though he has all the answers,..."

Heck, it's the Internet, NW, everyone's supposed to do this!

"... combined with the peristent lies even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence proving him wrong."

It isn't a lie if he believes it's true, it's a falsehood, and only if he's incorrect. As for "incontrovertible proof", that is a rare commodity around here. I may be "incontrovertible" to you, but that doesn't mean you've persuaded everyone else that its "incontrovertible".

You just don't like sinkspur. He gets under your skin. That's okay. But try not to allow it to cause you to judge him uncharitably.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

If you were to be elected to succeed to the Chair of Peter, then the sedevacantist position would be true - there would be no current occupant of the Chair of Peter. A heretic elected to the office of Supreme Pontiff is not actually the pope.

In that impossible event, then it is likely that I would have many more points of agreement with the SSPX.

;-)


sitetest

[drstevej]

As long as I am a nice heretic I think it will be OKie Dokie.

And I will not be kissing any Korans or appointing lavendar bishops.

[Desdemona]

Calm down darn it.

Most of the big metropolitan archdioceses, including mine, have a mansion, or one or two rooms less, which belongs to the archdiocese as the official residence of the archbishop. Here, the place is probably 8000 sq feet or so, but it's also over 100 years old with a carriage house behind it (the Chancellor lives in the apartment over it). To build that house today, in that spot would cost at least $1,000,000. Actually, just the limestone exterior would be that much. The land itself, about $250,000. It's my understanding the living quarters are sparse and the nicest part of the house is the chapel. I think that house was given to the archdiocese. It matches the other houses well enough and at the time, a lot of money was going into construction of the Cathedral.

This is all a tempest in a teapot unless a hot tub is involved. House construction is not cheap, especially when you need office space as well as living.

[sitetest]

Dear drstevej,

You are one of the nicest heretics that I've ever had the pleasure to meet.

"And I will not be kissing any Korans or appointing lavendar bishops."

Well, I doubt that you will be appointing bishops of any sort at all. ;-)


sitetest

[Notwithstanding]

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.

[drstevej]

***Heck, if the SSPX decide you're a heretic, for once, they'll be right! ;-)***

I meant to say Cardinals.

***You are one of the nicest heretics that I've ever had the pleasure to meet.***

I blush easily, thanks!