Replies

My guess is a "Sprit of Vatican II" priest.

Rigali is a firm adherent to Vatican II, but I was surprised that he would not be considered pastoral or one who would listen to laity input.

In any event, the "Pastoral" Abp. Jadot Bishops are coming to a end, these "Sprit of Vatican II" priests and self appointed laity are going to have to deal with that fact.

The laity are not self-appointed; they've been given these roles in the Church, or taken them when priests neglected a ministry.

And you're dreaming if you don't think laymen are going to continue to demand that bishops and priests be accountable for what they do.

Of course laymen should account for the priests and Bishops to be ethical, and as a layman, I will expect the clergy to firmly adhere to church teachings. The biggest irony, if the clergy held to church teachings, there would have been no scandals.

As for Cardinal Rigali, he is faithful to Vatican II, but faithful to what the documents actually said, not to the "Sprit of Vatican II" that bishops such as Abp. Weakland held to.

Rigali is a firm adherent to Vatican II, but I was surprised that he would not be considered pastoral or one who would listen to laity input.

I'm not. This is something a lot of people complain about with Rigali. It wasn't true, but then he was WAY more conservative than May was. May was a hero around here.

Rigali is a firm adherent to Vatican II, but I was surprised that he would not be considered pastoral or one who would listen to laity input.

A couple of years ago, the Pro-lfe movement in Philly began making a connection between a lack of chastity, contraception, and abortion.

Bevilacqua met with pro-lifers once in 1999 and he refused to meet with them again - on the election, on contraception, on teen chastity awareness, on anything.

Recently, Rigali, who knew of their history with Bevilacqua, agreed to meet with them. These folks have reported that although Rigali is not the warmest of leaders, he was keenly interested in what they had to say, seemed very knowledgable on the issues, and absolutely knows the resistance we are up against.

Although this all seems very pastoral to me, two things still leave me a little scared of Rigali. Upon his installation, there was a piece in the Catholic Standard about his "close friendship with Cardianal Mahoney". The other thing that scares me is he has refused to say homosexuals are unfit for the priesthood, and I'm afraid he will lift the ban from St. Charles Seminary.

I was surprised that he would not be considered pastoral

Then you haven't learnt to decipher newspeak. "Pastoral" describes a bishop or priest who "listens" to all the fad-driven, trendy leftists, and supports "reproductive rights", "birth-control", priestesses, liturgical experimentation, barren churches, "inclusive" language, re-interpretation of Scripture, etc. To be orthodox is to be unpastoral. To be pastoral is to tolerate heresy, if not to be an outright heretic oneself.