It Was Us Against Them: Does Mahony Want A Priestless Church?

Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission ^ | March, 2001 | Robert Kumpel

[american colleen]

While Father Z isn't sure about Mahony's plans for a priestless Church, he believes the archdiocesan hostility to traditional Catholicism has taken its toll on vocations. "I do know that a lot of priests have left. The cardinal likes a certain kind of priest. You can tell that they don't want vocations, because they do nothing to inspire vocations. He's purposely put a very liberal, feminist Sister (Kathy Bryant) as the vocations person.

"I think if we got a reasonable archbishop of Los Angeles, all of a sudden things would just switch. There's such a small minority of the real liberals and 'protestantized' Catholics that things would switch right away."

If Father Z's assessment of Mahony seems to contradict his gentle public image, Father Z is not alone in his view. Both Father Y and Father Z are firghtened of Mahony and spoke only on assurance of anonymity. "The cardinal is a tough man," one explained. "He will just crush you. He won't stop. I know of a priest who spoke out against something the cardinal was behind and he would not back off until the priest resigned. He even threatened to withdraw financial support. He has a lot of power because Los Angeles is one of the richest dioceses in the world and money is power. That's one of the biggest ways he throws his weight around.

"I pray for a real conversion (for Mahony). If he were to convert he would just be a powerhouse for the Church. He is a very engaging person. When he's in your presence, he really wins you over. He has a way of gauging you and he holds all his cards to his chest. He lets you break the ground and, once that happens, he's very agreeable to whatever you say. Everyone walks away from him saying, 'what a wonderful man!' When you're with him one on one, he really does fool you. It's when you find out what he's done later that you realize what you're dealing with, and it's not gentle. I know a lot of priests who have suffered under him. If you want holy priests, you need a holy bishop."

I attempted several times to reach Sister Kathy Bryant for response. She did not return my phone calls before this article went to press.

[TotusTuus]

What sitetest said in #57

Perhaps I can work on a more charitable way of helping others in correcting errors in their Faith. Lord knows, I've needed correction at times. Throwing the the word "heresy" around shouldn't be done lightly, but see post #57

[nickcarraway]

Please read the posts again. God has perfect knowledge that never wavers. Humans don't. To say that we sometimes have doubts about something is to acknowledge being human. She said she sometimes has a ``difficult time believing,'' something, which is a lot different than saying it's not true. That mere statement is a lot different than proclaiming the Donatist heresy! Only an idiot would equate that to the precisely defined heresy of Donatism, and I think both of you are smarter than that.

[nickcarraway]

Look at her statement. She said she had a hard time believing it, not that it wasn't true. (Which would be required to be heresy.)Have you never had doubts, had a hard time grasping a concept, or sinned?

[nickcarraway]

Let me ask you one question: Our Holy Father, John Paul II, were here, what do you think his response would be? If you think it would be like yours, then you don't know much about our Holy Father. Do you really think you think you are better than him? Why act that way?

[sitetest]

Dear nickcarraway,

"Personally, I have a difficult time believing this..."

Well, if I thought that what you've quoted here represented more of a heartfelt doubt and less of an already-established opinion, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

But goldenstategirl continued:

"I think a priest/Saint's abilities are directly related to their own purity."

Now, the language used here is a little odd in juxtaposition with what came before, but it appears to me that she is expressing a theological opinion.

And the opinion that she is expressing through the first few sentences of her #2 is Donatism.

"Well, it's great that you have perfect faith. Most human beings don't."

Me neither.

"Expressing some doubt, like this, is a condition of being human. She was expressing these doubts, not teaching with certainty a theological concept."

It appeared to me that she was voicing a theological opinion.

I guess that I just don't find it as offensive as you to say that a person's words express a heretical idea.

I'm a devout Catholic, and have been all my life. Yet, at the age of 42, I can rattle off some number of heresies that I've traveled through in my life. Not knowingly, not obstinately, not out of a desire to rebel, but because I was stupid and didn't know any better. And each day, I learn a little more, and I likely hold fewer heretical ideas than I did 20 years ago.

It doesn't offend me to think that way. I don't know how to learn except by moving from not knowing to knowing.

And Smedleybutler's initial post to goldenstategirl certainly was in the vein of trying to assist in moving from not knowing to knowing.

"Calling someone a heretic in such a case isn't a very Christian way to help."

At least as I was taught, when used by itself, "heretic" is usually meant to indicate a "formal heretic" - someone who believes something at odds with Catholic faith, who knows it, and holds to it obstinately.

In his initial post to her, Smedleybutler just didn't call goldenstategirl a heretic, and certainly his post didn't even imply formal heresy.

"BUT PLEASE, AT LEAST BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND CONSISTENT: IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL HER A HERETIC, GO ON AND CALL MOTHER THERESA AND THE OTHER SAINTS HERETICS TO!"

Yes, Nick, let's be completely intellectually honest and consistent: the first part of your conditional statement isn't true. Smedleybutler didn't initially call her a heretic.

After goldenstategirl responded by calling his words complete and utter BS, Smedleybutler responded in kind. She jumped in the mud, gave him a tug, and he didn't resist. If you want to criticize him for it, that's reasonable.

But please, at least be intellectually honest and consistent and recognize that goldenstategirl was the first to attack.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear nickcarraway,

"Let me ask you one question: Our Holy Father, John Paul II, overheard her say that, what do you think his response would be? If you think it would be like yours, then you don't know much about our Holy Father. Do you really think you think you are better than him? Why act that way?"

I don't know what his response would be. It wouldn't be like my response. And I wouldn't have responded to goldenstategirl as Smedleybutler did. We're different people, and have different approaches.

I'd imagine that our Holy Father would be the most effective of us, that doesn't mean that we could readily adopt his style. And personally, I wouldn't try.

So, in general, I don't even consider the question appropriate.

I think that the relevant questions are whether what SB said was true, fair, and charitable.

He didn't call her (at least initially), a heretic. He said the opinion expressed was heresy. It is. He invited her to a link which would give a more complete explanation. That was both fair and charitable.

I just don't have a big problem here.

Sorry, nick, that's really how I see it. Sorry if you disagree.


sitetest

[nickcarraway]

Well, I do have to disagree with you. Goldenstategirl didn't even address SB, until he said this: Your position is known as the Donatist heresy'' ``You say he didn't call her a heretic initally. I was an English major, and in my book that's calling someone a heretic. To say you hold the position of a heretic, is to say you are a heretic. So, I can only disagree with you when you say she initiated with that. I think it's reasonable to get defensive after being confronted with that. It appears there were a lot of misunderstandings after that, but they could have avoided from the start by Smedleybutler.I'll tell you what. You print out her initial comment and take it to a theology professor and ask the professor if Your position is known as the Donatist heresy'' is a fair response to that. Take it to several.

[nickcarraway]

No, we all can't be like the Holy Father, but for some reason I think the Holy Father would be a lot more ashamed of those who attacked her.

[Sock]

Ignore the jerks. Stick around.

[sitetest]

Dear nickcarraway,

To say that someone's opinion is heresy is a far cry from calling someone a formal heretic, which is usually what is meant when we use the word "heretic" by itself.

"You print out her initial comment and take it to a theology professor and ask the professor if Your position is known as the Donatist heresy'' is a fair response to that. Take it to several."

I don't need to do that, nick. This is how my theology professors talked in class when I attended college. I can't tell you how many times my own opinions have been (usually rightly) called heresy. But that wasn't the same as being attacked as a heretic.

"It appears there were a lot of misunderstandings after that, but they could have avoided from the start by Smedleybutler."

Well, they could have also been avoided by goldenstategirl, by not immediately responding that SB's post was complete and utter BS.

I can agree that there were ways to approach the question that might have not caused goldenstategirl to attack SB. I can agree, also, that it isn't a bad policy to ignore the first couple of flaming posts, and see if one can't get past them.

And I haven't defended SB's descent into the mud pit after being pulled in by gsg.

But I ain't gonna say the first post was outside the bounds of charity. In fact, I think it's charitable to tell folks when they're thinking stuff that is quite accurate.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear nickcarraway,

"those who attacked her."

"Those"? I saw SB engage in a mutual mudfight with her. I didn't see others attack her. In fact, I think only SoothingDave and Smedleybutler directly addressed goldenstategirl at all on the subject.

Now, we have Sock attacking some folks here, hurling invective at some folks, nick.

Will you admonish him as strongly as you admonished Smedleybutler, myself, and TotusTuus?


sitetest

[american colleen]

Something not so good is going on here. It's very distressing when the Catholic threads look like the Calvinist threads.

[Sock]

You’re an self centered egomaniac and a jerk.

[Sock]

Why don't you stay and let the jerks leave?

[Antoninus]

"The cardinal is a tough man," one explained. "He will just crush you. He won't stop. I know of a priest who spoke out against something the cardinal was behind and he would not back off until the priest resigned. He even threatened to withdraw financial support. He has a lot of power because Los Angeles is one of the richest dioceses in the world and money is power. That's one of the biggest ways he throws his weight around.

And he's a creature of the DNC. I reckon they catch him red handed like with Weakland and still not be able to get rid of him. Pray that God may make use of him and either turn his heart, or confound his designs.

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

You may be right, but it doesn't address the argument.


sitetest

[american colleen]

You know, maybe we should start a prayer rosary thread - each one of us can take turns saying a rosary for him.

Maybe we can e-mail him and tell him so.

But honestly, I believe that poor soul sold his to the devil long ago.

[Sock]

I freely admit that I am not right about everything, but I am right about you.

The argument has been addressed in post #69.

You annoy the he11 out of me and I would prefer if you will never post to me again and I intend to make this my last post to you.