Posted on 09/08/2003 9:11:49 PM PDT by american colleen
THOU ART A WIMP FOREVER:
I went to the meeting with the bishops that Deal Hudson and Russell Shaw arranged. I did not expect much, and I was not disappointed.
The bishops were told 1. that they had to be more direct in dealing with dissenting Catholics, and 2. that they should at the least stop appointing notorious pro-abortion politicians to prominent committees (Leon Panetta at the national Review Board).
The response to 1 : we are family, doing anything might make matters worse and only help pro-abortion politicians
The response to 2 : if his bishop vouches for the orthodoxy of any member of his flock, no other bishop will ever question that decision.
We were asked not to quote people, so I will quote myself:
“We all know that bishops were chosen by the Vatican because they are diplomatic, unifiers, team players, collegial. These are good qualities. However these qualities also lead to a reluctance to confront evil, even when confrontation is necessary. This reluctance led to the scandals. When people who knew the bishop responsible were asked how the bishop could ever let such a thing go on, they invariably replied, 'He hates confrontation more than anything.'
"Bishops have to be willing to go against their personalities and confront evil. We are in a battle, we are losing it. The more Catholic a state (or Canadian province), the more pro-abortion the politicians. Catholic societies have the lowest birth rates in the world. The policy of accommodation of the past 30 years has not worked. Confrontation may not work either, but we have to try it, and at least go down fighting.”
This was the message which almost all the participants gave to the bishops, with various degrees of tact.
But, as was obvious, nothing will change.
Hostility (see Mark Shea’s blog) is generally reserved for those who complain about outrageous goings–on, not the people who perpetrate the outrages. A bad conscience hurts.
Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the USCCB Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C. Bishop William Friend of Shreveport, LA Msgr. William Fay, USCCB General Secretary Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, USCCB Communications Director Kathleen McChesney, director of the USCCB’s Office of Child and Youth Protection Raymond Arroyo, EWTN News Director Pat Cipollone, Kirkland & Ellis partner William Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights Greg Erlandson, Publisher of Our Sunday Visitor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Professor of History at Emory University Dr. Robert George, Professor of Politics at Princeton University Frank Hanna, III, CEO of HBR Capital, Ltd. Barbara Henkels, Board Member of the Catholic Leadership Conference Paul Henkels, CEO of Henkels & McCoy, Inc. Tom Hoopes, Executive Editor of National Catholic Register Mother Assumpta Long, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist Peggy Noonan, commentator and columnist for the Wall Street Journal Robert Novak, commentator with CNN Kate O’Beirne, Senior Editor of National Review Fr. David O’Connell, President of the Catholic University of America Timothy O’Donnell, President of Christendom College Russell Shaw, co-host of the meeting, writer and editor Gene Zurlo, President of the Catholic Radio Association Denis Coleman, Ambassador for the American Consulate in Bermuda Bernard Dobranski, Dean of Ave Maria School of Law Jeffrey Wallin, President of the American Academy for Liberal Education William Plunkett, Jr., Plunkett & Jaffe partner Leon Suprenant, President of Catholics United for the Faith Sister Joseph Andrew, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist Patrick Madrid, Publisher of Envoy Magazine Father Richard Gill, L.C., Director of Our Lady of Bethesda Retreat Center Gregory Popcak, Director of the Pastoral Solutions Institute Dr. Thomas Dillon, President of Thomas Aquinas College Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, Office of Lt. Governor for the state of Maryland Fr. Terence Henry, President of Franciscan University Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life Carol McKinley, Faithful Voice Rep. Michael Ferguson, U.S. House of Congress Mark Ryland, Vice-President of the Discovery Institute Kathryn Jean Lopez, Associate Editor of National Review John Klink, former Diplomat of the Holy See to the UN Leon Podles, Senior Editor of Touchstone Magazine Cortes DeRussy, former President of Federated Capital Corporation Brian Saint-Paul, Editor of CRISIS Magazine
—Leon Podles 4:33 PM
There was a thread a couple weeks back. The FSSP was conducting a local pilgrimage terminating at the Basilica. They had written for permission to say the Mass far in advance and had received it. But at the last minute, the day before the pilgrimage, someone in the chancery put 2 and 2 together and figured out that the FSSP would be saying a (gasp) Latin Mass and this would set a terrible (according to them) precedent. So they withdrew the permission at the last minute saying that they would need to apply for a special indult and it would take weeks, etc.
What are some bishops so afraid of? There is no exlaination good enough to excuse forbidding a one time Tridentine Mass - especially said by a growing order. And you know what? Because the FFSP isn't progressive, they obeyed the bishop even though the directive is inexplicable. Wonder if McCarrick even knew about it.
The wimpy bishops will just allow the sodomites and their anti-Catholic secret society buddies and masters to bankrupt and shame the American Church even further. Catholics should stop funding AmChurch silliness and they should do so vocally and publicly. Empty black envelopes in the collection plate might not be a bad idea.
It is the reason why those people who swoon at the mention of John XXIII's name never speak of Paul VI.
First,I would not have expected any fired up responses from the bishops,most especially Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Gregory.Their public responses after the meeting with the "dissenters" seemed to me to indicate that they may have been somewhat blindsided by the the list of attendees as well as their agenda.But after that meeting they did not say a thing except they were surprised. I think no coomments were apropriate in this case also,and not at all indicative of their non-agreement. I think those are the only two worth considering anyway.
Second,as I recall this meeting was set up for them to listen to what non-dissenting CAtholics had to say.This appears to have been accomplished."Listening seesions" do not usually result in responses for some time even if they recognized Truth when they heard it.
Third,I sense that the attendees may have felt a resistance to our concerns but when you look at the list of Church representatives,most of them were bureaucrats who work for the Conference,what else could we have expected? Most of them were placed by the Bernardin contingent,who I believe hold good Bishops hostage and play with them and us, by stonewalling,bottlenecking,obfuscating and in all ways thwarting the Holy Father,the curia and good,faithful Catholics. I would have been very suspicious of any enthusiastic,on the spot endorsement of any ideas put forward. Remember,the comments that gave the attendees their "take" were most probably made by men who have a great animose toward us. We have been,and are, what they have been fighting.
My biggest concerns involve the bishops,who were there. I don't know anything about Friend and why he would have been there but I have followed Sklstra and Lynch and I can only pray that they do not ascend to higher postions at the USCCB,they are the "enemy",IMO.Until we get new bishops at the top,we are in trouble. Nonetheless,we should be happy that we are now seeing and identifying those wolves in sheeps' clothing that have practically deccimated the Church in the U.S.
I have one more comment which is probably not worth much,but I wish people would consider and that is,any one of us who at this time still mentions looking at the celibacy issue is really not thinking with the mind of the Church. I wish they would really pray to the Holy Ghost to conform their thinking to the mind of the Church.
Not the case. Humanae Vitae was a sell-out to the liberals. There was an article in Latin Mass magazine some time back. Humanae Vitae never mentioned the primary purpose of marriage, never mentioned "go forth and multiply," it spoke about the scary dangers of over-population, it encouraged "responsible parenthood." It's only "confrontational" aspect was that it encouraged "natural" birth control instead of "artificial."
It enraged the left to fits of apoplexy.
Their pet mouse let out a brief lion's roar and they lost it.
Humanae Vitae is the document that empirically proved that the doctrine of Indefectibility is true.
From a purely human standpoint, no other outcome that total capitulation could have been expected.
This is a colosally silly statement, Max, and I disagree with it totally!
If obedience meant only enduring things that please us, it wouldn't be virtuous.
IOW, anyone who favors optional celibacy should shut up, right?
When the Pope declares mandatory celibacy to be a doctrine of the Church, you'll get your wish.
Nuh-uh. Not the poster you addressed.
He's in the SSPX, whose leadership is in schism.
Conservatives have tended to judge issues by this standard, by the reaction of the left. But this is at best a poor standard to go by, and is entirely subjective.
From a purely human standpoint, no other outcome that total capitulation could have been expected.
The Minority Report of the Papal Commission did not think so. They strongly re-affirmed the traditional teaching of the Church.
Last November there was a statement put out by the bishops that went under the radar because all the attention was on the scandal situation. It was on violence in marriage, and of course no one is in favor of violence in marriage. But the document had some horrible statements that were blatantly contrary to Catholic teaching on marriage. The vote was 249 - 2. So there are only 2 bishops at most in the US who are willing to take an unpopular stance in defense of the Catholic faith. We aren't even sure about the 2 "No" votes, they could have had other motivations, but we are sure that 249 will support non-Catholic teaching rather than go against the politically-correct trend.
What were the "horrible statements"? Since you get in such a snit over NFP, excuse me if I want to see the actual statements rather than take your word for it.
Well said.
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.