"Thou art a wimp forever" - bishops meeting

If you are going to get in a huff, you should be better informed than you seem to be. The claim is not that the Novus Ordo is invalid--that is a red herring. It is that the new missal is theologically deficient--more Lutheran than Catholic. This is demonstrable. It is also in defiance of the Council of Trent which has proscribed any Mass which is essentially a commemorative meal rather than a propitiatory sacrifice-- not that someone like you would know the difference. As for knowing better than the Pope--the issue is not whether I know better than the Pope, but whether other popes knew far better than this one--which traditionalists believe to be the case. Nor do we hold that a pope has the authority to supercede a major council like Trent. As for obedience to the pontiff--that would depend on what is commanded. Even a pope should be disobeyed if he commands what is harmful to the faith.

I can't believe it, but this is the only thing on the USCCB website:

**

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' National Advisory Council meeting, Baltimore, Sept. 5-7.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Administrative Committee meeting, Washington, Sept. 9-11. **
Please keep us informed.

"Another psycological test? ;-) Lord! Spare us!"

LOL!!

"Sometimes I think that the bishops reflect us."

I think there is a lot of truth in this, but I also know many good priests who are prepared to stand up for the faith and what is right. These always seem to be the ones who will never get promoted to the episcopate.

It is the limp-wristed gas-bags who just want to get along with everybody (except traditionalists) who generally get promoted over the heads of men with faith. I sometimes wonder if this is a deliberate ploy by HQ to keep the episcopate weak. Wouldn't want any shining star to obscure the limelight from falling on HH etc.

Who were the two?

"the issue is not whether I know better than the Pope, but
whether other popes knew far better than this one--which traditionalists believe
to be the case. "

Great...so you don't believe in the bit about the "Gates of hell not prevailing against it." sheesh. Enjoy your sect....

"Let's face it, there are no good bishops, with 1 or 2 possible exceptions out of 250. You're fooling yourself if you think that your bishop is any better than the rest.

This is a colosally silly statement, Max, and I disagree with it totally!"

I agree with Deacon Sinkspur. There have got to be at least five or six.

"...was there an outcry among the more tradionally minded Catholics?"

No outcry. Why waste our time.

We just stopped making our annual contribution to the basilica, which we have made since our visit in 1992.

Where do you find 200 good episcopali?

I think we could pretty safely replace them with Marine corps drill instructors and be back on our feet within a year.

Sometimes I am strongly tempted to think that what we need now is men with strong natural parenting skills:

Forget that. What we need is FIDELITY and GUTS. Aside from Bishop Bruskewitz, how many of our other red-hats can we say with confidence have these qualities?

Look, suppose you stop worrying about what I think and look to your own thinking--which is pretty muddled. The guarantee that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church doesn't necessarily mean those in charge can't screw up. As for my belonging to a cult, I'm a traditional Catholic. This means I believe and practice what Catholics have believed and practiced for two thousand years. If I'm not in step with what's going on in your local parish--that's not my problem, it's theirs and yours. Maybe you're the one who should investigate whether your own faith is truly Catholic.

"He's in the SSPX, whose leadership is in schism"

How am I in the SSPX? I am not a cleric. Nor do I believe the Society is in schism, regardless of how many times this statement is repeated.

anyone who favors optional celibacy should shut up

Good advice.

"I just worry about the possible converts who are repelled and/or offended. Probably all of us, if we are willing and able, have an indult that is sort of accessible - if we don't want to deal with our own parish bs."

I understand fully. We are embarrassed to invite anyone to attend Mass with us locally for fear of what we might encounter (e.g. banal music, hula dancers, new age b.s. etc.) We have invited folks to attend Mass in Portland where there are still a few reverent Masses avaliable. Portland , however is more than a five hour round trip for us.

As for what you had to deal with as a kid, I can not even begin to understand how you managed to keep the faith, much less excell in your understanding of what it means to be Catholic. My hat is off to you. You have proven yourself to be not only a survivor but a champion. Thanks be to God for his grace which you amply received.

Who were the two?

I wish I knew. I've tried to find out, but apparently it was secret balloting. Plus we don't know that the 2 bishops were faithful Catholics. They may have voted No for other reasons.

I just got this in an email from Deal Hudson == worth reading!

What Happened At The Meeting

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter

September 9, 2003

Dear Friend,

Well, things have finally settled down around here after the
excitement of yesterday's meeting with the bishops. I want to give
you my general impressions, but first I need to thank you again for
your prayers and support. I think we were blessed with a fruitful
discussion.

One of the agreements the attendees made during the meeting was to
refrain from later paraphrasing or quoting the comments of others
(though, of course, we're free to talk about our own involvement).
This was actually for the protection of those at the meeting: None of
us want to have our comments or views inadvertently misrepresented by
someone else (especially when the issues are as vital as the ones we
discussed).

So, in the following report to you, I've gotten direct quotes today
from a number of the attendees, along with their permission to use
them in this letter.

With that said, let's get started...

There ended up being about 40 Catholic leaders and representatives,
both lay and religious, who attended the meeting, in addition to five
bishops (Wilton Gregory, president of the USCCB, Theodore Cardinal
McCarrick of Washington, DC, William Friend of Shreveport, William
Skylstad of Spokane, and Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg).

Some people have commented that the list, while having its share of
impressive leaders, didn't have many representatives of regular
Catholics. This is simply untrue: The attendees came from every walk
of life and every part of the country... professors, businessmen,
stay-at-home moms, journalists, presidents of Catholic colleges,
priests and religious sisters... they were all there.

Unfortunately, we were limited in the number of people we could
invite. And while a few of our invitees were unable to attend, we
ended up with a marvelous group. (I emailed you the list of attendees
yesterday morning.)

Gene Zurlo, the president of the Catholic Radio Association, said he
was impressed by the "roomful of such smart people who love the
Church, who believe in the fullness of truth, and have such an
evangelical spirit.... These people are prepared to give their time
and talent to the bishops to further the Church's interest."

I think the title of the meeting sums up the general tone of the
day: It was definitely "A Meeting In Support Of The Church." Instead
of pointing fingers and spreading blame, the participants were there
out of love for the Church and a desire for constructive dialogue
about the problems currently plaguing her. While attendees voiced
their concerns and confronted the bishops with some pretty pointed
questions, the meeting never devolved into a shouting match.

Truth must always be accompanied by charity, as indeed charity must
always be founded on the truth.

We began the meeting promptly at 9:15AM in a second floor conference
room of the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C. The day was structured
with five presentations, each followed by a moderated discussion. At
the end of the meeting, we had a general question and answer session
for the bishops.

Frank Hanna III, CEO of HBR Capital, Ltd. started the day with a
magnificent presentation on leadership in the Church. It was the
perfect way to begin the meeting. Frank was forceful and pointed, but
his tone was generous.

The other attendees were impressed. Barbara Henkels of the Catholic
Leadership Conference called it "a masterpiece... It was clearly
inspired, but he obviously had worked a great deal on it."

Frank's central point was a vital one: "We believe our bishops are
the successors to the Apostles," he told me. "We were there to
encourage and support them in that role, and to let them know that
when they are courageous and strong, the entire Church is courageous
and strong."

The discussion that followed set the tone for much of the rest of
the day.

The first question came from Bill Donohue, president of the highly
effective Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights. "I asked
about the April 2002 meeting with the Holy Father, after which, [the
bishops] released a statement in which they said they would deal with
dissent in the Church and that there would be reprimands. Well, where
were the reprimands for the seventy professors from Georgetown
University who signed a letter of protest against Cardinal Arinze for
stating Catholic teaching on sexuality? And where was the reprimand
for Fr. James Keenan, S.J. of the Weston School of Theology who
testified for gay marriage before the Massachusetts legislature?"

The discussion that followed continued in this vein. The point was
made that speaking with charity means speaking out of love for the
other person, which sometimes means confronting him when he's in
error. This is the very thing the bishops are called to do: correct
their flock when they go astray. If bishops lead in this manner,
people will follow.

The second presentation was given by Dr. Robert George, professor of
jurisprudence at Princeton University (you can read a profile of
Robby in the current issue of CRISIS). He focused on the challenges
the Church will soon be facing, especially in the area of bioethics.

George made a number of excellent points about the importance of
life issues and why we must be unwavering in our dedication to them.
This naturally led to a general discussion of Catholics in the public
eye who dissent in these areas. Many of the attendees questioned why
pro-abortion Catholic Leon Panetta was asked to serve on the bishops'
lay review board, sending mixed messages about our Church's
dedication to the unborn.

Tom Hoopes, executive editor of the National Catholic Register, told
CRISIS that the repeated attention brought to life issues and the
scandal caused by Panetta's appointment just goes to show how deeply
Catholics care about these problems. "If the bishops ever got the
impression that pro-life Catholics are inordinately obsessed with one
issue," Hoopes said, "George's comments went a long way toward
explaining why we care so deeply about life issues."

Patrick Madrid, editor-in-chief of Envoy Magazine and popular
Catholic apologist, then gave a well-considered luncheon presentation
on the importance of priestly celibacy in the Latin rite.

Several of the attendees praised Bishop Gregory's recent letter
responding to the 160 or so Minnesota priests who signed a petition
advocating a married priesthood. For my part, Gregory's response
struck the perfect balance between charity and correction. This is an
example of the strong but loving leadership we so desperately need
from our bishops.

As the discussion moved on, the topic of pro-abortion "Catholic"
politicians came up. Especially troublesome was the appointment of
Leon Panetta to the Bishop's National Review Board (Panetta has a
long record of supporting abortion).

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, . "While I'm
grateful the bishops who attended were willing to hear from some
faithful critics, I don't believe the meeting can be declared a
success until the likes of Leon Panetta no longer sit on the National
Review Board -- and officials who publicly support abortion are never
again honored by princes of the Church. For no matter how many strong
pro-life statements a bishop or the bishop's conference may make,
they're dramatically diminished by such public, blatant,
inconsistencies. Until the sanctity of human life (and the
preservation of marriage) is a top public-policy priority for the
episcopal conference, I don't think the meeting is over."

Many of the attendees praised Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento,
for his firm stand against Grey Davis, the pro-abortion "Catholic"
governor of California. The discussion then moved to the question of
whether or not an open condemnation from the bishops would end up
sending MORE votes to a pro-abortion Catholic politician (people love
mavericks, after all). Barbara Henkels noted that, among the
attendees, "the consensus was that the local bishop HAS to speak out,
and the other bishops have to support him. One of my comments was
that we need to be thinking of the long term effect, not just the
short term result. And, of course, it's a simple matter of the bishop
doing what's right."

Peggy Noonan, a popular writer and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, gave the fourth presentation, focusing on the leadership of
John Paul II. Peggy is always wonderful, and it was a joy to hear her
speak forcefully on the pain and confusion many of us feel. But that
wasn't all she touched on.

"Peggy Noonan's remarks were filled with open-mindedness, love for
the Church, concern for the world, and care for the poor," Hoopes
said. "She represented the best virtues of faithful Catholicism in
America."

Bishop Gregory gave a brief wrap-up presentation, followed by a
lengthy general discussion.

John Klink, former diplomat of the Holy See to the UN, noted the
recent phenomena of anti-Catholic bias in considering judicial
nominations. "My own comments focused on the danger of 'Catholics
Need Not Apply' bias that's evident in the recent filibusters of all
the Catholic candidates in the Senate," he noted. Few comments drew
more nods from the other attendees.

Leon Supernant, the president of Catholics United for the Faith,
made several important points. "I made a comment dealing with my
interest and support for a plenary council as a opportunity for the
bishops and Church to really seize the moment instead of continuing
with business as usual -- and not simply in defense, but to make the
most of the moment in a proactive way. Obviously, there's much to be
done with respect to prayer and action and there's a spiritual and
organizational dimension to address individually. But we also need to
address it as a Church. A plenary council or a similar gathering can
allow the Holy Spirit to get things going in a new way."

Patrick O'Meara, CEO of O'Meara Capital Partners, offered the final
comment -- a fitting close to the meeting: "I spoke to the fact that
we need to maintain our focus on the proper end, not to win the
battle ground of the media or political elections. We need the
bishops to preach the truth. The primary relationships they need to
foster are the ones with their own priests. They won't win the New
York Times but they WILL win Catholics by preaching the truth."

Most attendees thought the meeting went well. O'Meara told us that
he was "tremendously grateful to the executive committee for taking
the time out to meet and listen to those who love them. I'm very
pleased with the fact that so many laity were able to express their
support and give input on how to more heroically preach the Gospel.
The Church's fight today belongs to the laity and after listening to
the luminaries in that room, I rest more assured that the laity are
well-equipped for what lies ahead."

Klink noted that "The meeting offered an opportunity to express and
demonstrate the unity which exists between faithful Catholics in the
U.S., the Holy See, and the expressed positions of the bishops. I'm
confident that it will produce a continued dialogue on crucial issues
which affect the future of the Church in the U.S. between the USCCB
and the faithful laity."

Carol McKinley of Faithful Voice in Boston agreed. She thought it
was "A very productive and successful meeting where we established
the groundwork and accountability for the dissent which caused this
sexual abuse of our children. The silence, which has allowed Christ's
Truth to be hijacked, is no longer acceptable. Illegitimate and
dissenting organizations and individuals must be prohibited from
plotting the destruction of Christ's Church."

Donohue called the meeting "one of the finest assemblies of faithful
Catholics that I have ever attended. The tone was firm, yet fair.
Hopefully, what was said will be implemented."

And just how receptive were the bishops to our suggestions and
comments? Well, there were some questions and concerns that they
couldn't really answer, because there was no adequate answer.

But having said that, most of the attendees I talked to were
cautiously optimistic. Suprenant thought "it was refreshing to hear
the bishops give Catholics, who fully and unabashedly accept Church
teaching, an appropriate place at the table. I like the point that
was made [in the discussions] that while all people are welcome in
the Church, when it comes to leadership positions with influence, we
should be listening to people who support the Church."

Suprenant additionally felt that his comments were received "very
positively."

Donohue agreed. "I think that Bishop Gregory proved to be very
attentive and considerate of the sentiments expressed at the
meeting."

So, what do I think? Well, all told, I think the meeting went better
than I expected. In considering the day, we need to make sure our
goals are realistic. It would have been great if the bishops loudly
agreed with everything we said, and pledged to move forward on all
our proposals. That obviously didn't happen, nor should we have
expected it to.

In the end, I wasn't satisfied with everything the bishops said. But
nor was I dissatisfied. They were there to listen, and they did so
(providing some very good comments along the way). The point of our
meeting was a simple one: We wanted to be heard. Too often, we
complain that faithful Catholics get the short end of the stick. This
is true. But if we give up the opportunity to speak to the leaders of
the Church when we're given the chance, we lose the right to complain
that we're ignored.

This meeting was a sounding board... a chance to let the bishops
know that we want them to lead with courage and with truth. On that
point, the meeting was a success. And I'm truly grateful to the
attending bishops for giving up their day to meet with us. If we're
going to criticize their mistakes, we must also praise them when they
do something positive.

Let me close with something Father David O'Connell, the president of
the Catholic University of America, told us:

"I do not believe that anyone present could sense anything among the
participants but great energy, love and passion for the Church. I
left the meeting with renewed enthusiasm and hope, despite the recent
crisis we've experienced. People spoke from the heart but also with a
carefully considered point of view. I thought that the advice given
to the bishops present was both respectful and courageous.
Participants spoke with refreshing candor about the things that were
most important to them.

"After the meeting, I had dinner in my home with a group of bishops
and priests. They were curious about the day and I remarked that 'if
these folks are the future of the Catholic Church in the United
States, we have nothing to fear.'"

Amen to that.

Talk to you soon,

Deal

Actually, my mother made all the felt banners in our parish. The First Friday one had a Crown of Thorns that was sewn on. Talk about a lot of work. It's currently in Mom's closet.

It's only the liberals with whom they refuse to be confrontational. The reason is obvious -- there's no point in confronting your allies with whom you agree.

I disagree with your conclusion. It doesn't necessarily follow that bishops agree with liberals. There could be many factors explaining an unwillingness to be "confrontational" with progressives compared to tradtionalists. The most obvious one to me is the whole "more Catholic than thou" attitude that traditionalists convey in their every utterance. It's a turn-off, and bishops being human, and bishops, might find this in your face, "your wrong",'"you're not doing it right" attitude extremely displeasing. Confrontation breeds confrontation.....you reap what you sow.

Contrast that with the progressive's methodology, in which reason, tact, and respect are employed. For instance, why not have altar girls? Wouldn't it increase the involvement of women in the church? Wouldn't it help to inculcate a truly Christian climate of inclusiveness and help to eliminate the patriarchal stigma the Church is criticized for having? Reasonable assertions, no?

One more example would be our own resident married clergy proponent. Though he is as adament in his position as are tradtionalists in theirs, I can't recall him villifying the pope or calling anyone a fool for disagreeing, or abandoning the church for one that agrees with him on that point. And though I have not observed any one being persuaded by his common sense arguments, in fact he is nearly unanimously opposed, he still enjoys the respect and comraderie of most everyone that engages him.

Style can account for a lot.

Menat to ping you to 77.

Menat to ping you to 77.

Meant to type meant.

PREACH IT SISTER!!!Amen. AC saves a lot of us a lot of typing.