At least a theologically-sound Cardinal is being replaced with a theologically-sound Bishop.
Do you think Denver would be a good place for an Irishman to run a travelogue blog? Some potential for beautiful pictures.
Some very interesting details here.
On June 30, the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops picked the name of a potential Philadelphia archbishop from a list of three candidates – known as a “terna” – to recommend to Pope Benedict.
However, after praying over the issue during the Fourth of July weekend, Pope Benedict decided not to select any of the recommended candidates, and specifically chose Archbishop Chaput for the post.
Very interesting!
20 comments:
Hi, Carol.
I just thought I would let you know that Rigali isn't as sound as you would think. Research has given us a lead that he may not be as he seems. Something went wrong when he was in Wisconsin, and it carried over into Philly...that's why we went after him and his flunkies. He is anything but "Theologically Sound." He is good at spin, however. All you have to do is read the letter he had Bambera write to me after I had written to him when Martino was "retired". He had a lot of people fooled. Love your work. Please don't ever quit.
Jesus Is Lord!
Tim
" He is good at spin, however."
Aren't they all?
I have often wondered how they learned the art of it. They're quite good at what they do.
Veronica
Carol, I don't trust Chaput. He is an ignorant careerist. Why do I think that? Well, several years ago in "First Things" magazine, he equated Supreme Cout Justice Scalia with Frances Kissling, the head of Catholics For A Free Choice. Why? Because Scalia raised questions about the Church's revisionist stand toward capital punishment.
This is what Chaput said:
"When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not all that different from Frances Kissling disputing what the church teaches about abortion,... the impulse to pick and choose what we're going to accept is exactly the same kind of 'cafeteria Catholicism' in both cases.”
Anybody who knows Church history knows that, until very recently, the Vatican did not actively oppose capital punishment (in fact, the Papal States used the guillotine to execute offenders in its territory). Anybody who knows Church history also knows that the Church has *never* supported abortion.
There are only three explanations for Chaput's comment:
1. He is pathetically ignorant of the history and theology of his own Church.
2. He is a grandstander who needs attention.
3. He is an ambitious charlatan who is bucking for a red cap and a bigger see.
If you're the betting type, bet on 3.
Until Chaput apologizes publicly for his moronic, despicable response to Scalia, I will pay no attention to anything he says.
BTW, I wrote a piece for Front Page Magazine about the Church's revisionist position:
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
When Cardinal Rigali speaks, all I get is...usually confused. Admittedly I don't know much about him, except he was the leader of the "life movement" I forget it's title. But from my lowly vantage point, even as a Philadelphian, he seemed somewhat bland. I am actually looking forward to Archbishop Chaput, as he has a reputation for orthodoxy and being a mover and a shaker. I didn't know any of what Joe posted, but I'll be listening more closely.
Veronica and Tim M., regarding spin, that's what you get when you have religious leaders viewing themselves more as medieval potentates than as servants of God, despite their rhetoric to the contrary.
Kelly, I know exactly what you mean about getting confused. They talk in circles for an extended period of time saying absolutely nothing.
One of our priests often gives "homilies" like that - he'll take one sentence and say the exact same thing fifty different ways. In short, at the end, he has said absolutely nothing.
Many, many, many, many years ago we had a client in prison who would call regularly. When you asked him a question, he would go on and on and on leading you to think he had answered you. One day, after I had hung up, I realized he hadn't answered me at all. He never did, but he would give you the impression he was answering you.
I tell you this because the heirarchy in our beloved Church do the exact same thing. How utterly refreshing it would be if they would talk and/or write simply and plainly and to the point without all of their posturing and evasions.
Veronica
Veronica, you post gives new meaning to the Biblical citation, "He (Jesus) teaches with authority and not like our scribes."
Joseph,
I'd assume you've had the chance to read the address of the Irish Prime Minister regarding the horrors in the Diocese of Cloyne. Some highlights follow -- the first sentence reminding me of your accurate observations of the bishops:
"...the Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism .... the narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day.
"The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead, the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation'.
"As a practising Catholic, I don't say any of this easily. Growing up, many of us in here learned we were part of a pilgrim Church.
"Today, that Church needs to be a penitent Church. A church, truly and deeply penitent for the horrors it perpetrated, hid and denied.
"I am making it absolutely clear, that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself, cannot and will not, be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic.
"Not purely, or simply or otherwise.
"CHILDREN .... FIRST."
Wow! A real man, that Kenny! Pope Benedict should be ashamed. It is clear that absolutely nothing has changed at the top.
Just what has Cardinal Sean been up to over in Ireland? Does anybody think the cardinal has anything to worry about from our complaints to Rome? Heh, heh.
Interesting. Cardinal Rigali has enjoyed a reputation for orthodoxy. I guess like OMalley, what you hear does not always comfort with reality.
TTC, it's rather easy to support theological "orthodoxy" (or, for that matter, heterodoxy) when that "orthodoxy":
1. Doesn't make any demands on the person preaching it
2. Serves merely as a tool to enhance one's own power (Chaput) or as a facade to throw off the faithful.
Part of the problem is that Catholicism has become excessively intellectual and academic. "Faith" is not defined as fundamental confidence in God's character and integrity but exclusively as knowledge. That's why Catholics say that there's no faith in Heaven because everything will be revealed. But if Jesus couldn't please the Father w/o faith, then what is He doing seated at God's right hand?
When any faith becomes almost exclusively an academic exercise, it loses any ethical impact. That's why the hierarchy has been so hypocritical for centuries.
Thanks Veronica, I though maybe I was just to dumb to understand...I really never thought past that point. If I had been listening for equivocation, maybe I would have found it. But since a single sentence seemed to go on beyond my ability to stay focused, I assumed the blame was on me.
Joe--sorry for my simpleness, but are you saying Archbishop Chaput is not really orthodox? Because this is the rep. that precedes him and what many of us were looking forward to.
Kelly, I don't care whether Chaput is orthodox or not, frankly. My criticism is that he's either excessively ambitious or incredibly ignorant about Church history.
Look at my first post about his comments concerning capital punishment and Supreme Court Justice Scalia. To equate anyone, let alone a Supreme Court justice, who questions the Church's current stance toward capital punishment with Frances Kissling is reprehensible.
The ambitious prelates know that with this Pope and his predecessor, the more "orthodox" you can sound, the better your career chances.
Chaput is going to get a red hat for Philadelphia. Count on it. It's what he wants, badly.
Also, go to my second post, which links to an article I wrote about how the Church's current stance contradicts Scripture, Tradition and centuries of previous teaching. Paste the link into your browser.
Kelly, when I say that I don't care whether Chaput is orthodox, I'm saying that some things are far more important than rhetorical orthodoxy...such as good judgment and personal character. After Chaput made his comments about Scalia, I wouldn't trust him if he told me that 2+2=4. Granted, I'm extremely passionate about capital punishment for murder and I might be over-reacting but I found Chaput's comments so idiotic that I find no reason to have confidence in him.
Joseph,
You're 100% on the mark re Chaput's un-Catholic call for ending the death penalty. To my mind, such nonsense plays into the hands of the socialists who wish to destroy law and order.
You may not value orthodoxy, but I can't see it that way. Orthodoxy is indispensible. The only thing more important is holiness, but holiness is impossible without orthodoxy. And I question Bp. Chaput's orthodoxy because of his position on the death penalty.
On the virtue of Faith, I think your equating it with confidence might confuse it with Hope. "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." (Heb 11:1). The Roman Catechism calls it knowledge revealed by God: "This knowledge, however, is nothing else than faith, by which we yield our unhesitating assent to whatever the authority of our Holy Mother the Church teaches us to have been revealed by God." In Heaven, we will know God and see Him as He is. He Himself will become the Substance of our knowledge, and faith will no longer be necessary. "We shall see Him as He is," (1 Jn 3:2) and "We see now through a glass in an obscure manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known." (I Cor. 13:12)
Thanks for the response, Joe. I did read what you posted. I guess I still have to hope he will do good here, even if he himself has impure motives. I will have to try and keep up with what goes on better. C. Rigali kind of flew under the radar.
I am not sure I agree that he is motivated by ambition. Bishops who speak out pay a heavy price. I am grateful for his work and wish he was assigned here...or someone like hum...
Jerry, I stand corrected on the value of orthodoxy. I'm just so sick and tired of orthodox rhetoric having more value than moral behavior in the eyes of many, especially in the hierarchy.
I'm tired of words. I want action.
I must say, also, that too many Catholics get seduced by rhetoric at the expense of examining behavior. Obviously, that's not exclusively a Catholic problem, nor exclusively a religious one. But Christ said it best: You shall know them by their fruits.
If we keep those words in mind, we will have a proven means to discern people and their actions.
Remember, Bernard Law was considered orthodox, to the best of my knowledge (and I live in California), before the whole clerical sex-abuse crisis broke.
I know I'm dragging back to an old post, but I just listened to the beginning of B.Chaput's homily from last Sunday, (they are all on his facebook page) in which he welcomes everyone who went to Denver for the Knights of Columbus convention, AND talks about his good friend of 47 years, Sean O'Malley being there as an honored guest. Should we be scared?
Kelly,
Ugh.
Yes and no.
The bigger picture is, there is no amount of rape or murder where a fellow bishop or the group of Bishops will hold their colleague accountable. If you are in a diocese where a Bishop should set children up to be killed, never mind raped, he will be coddled and protected - all the way to the Vatican - and sadly, the Holy Father.
The good news is, you have a good Bishop so there is nothing to worry about where you are.
Post a Comment