My goodness. So it's going to be business as usual? When is Benedict going to do something?
...comme à Marseille?
...comme à Marseille?Entendez-vous que la nomination épiscopale à Marseille soit "business as usual", ou "doing something" ?
Regardez les commentaires au Forum Catholique, s'il vous plaît.
The new Archbishop elect is said to be a disciple of the old one. Just as in Boston, the present Cardinal was the disciple and confidant of the former.
Do we have anything other than rumors about Weurl? He has published catechetical works that are pretty straight-arrow, from what I've been able to observe. He would have to be an improvement over McCarrick.
Well, *I* am VERY interested in what is being said about the new Archbishop of Marseilles. But I don't read French and cannot avail myself of the Forum Catholique...
Jeff:I'd love to know what's being said about him too. That way I can figure out what it has to do with Wuerl's appointment, which I understood to be the subject of this post.Now I'm confused.
Worried about Wuerl? His strong point is his relationship to Cardinal Wright.Back in the early 80s he gave a talk to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and upset them. He told them that wheras it tokk a short time to get the church in the mess it is it will take 50 years or more to get her out of it. He was sent to Seattle to be the orthodox watchdog over Hunthausen but Rome left him hanging in the wind as the liberals there persecuted him.Amutual friend told me that he would throw uo every night-it was that horrible.Then after a Bernadin crafted "settlement" Wuerl was removed (not Hunthausen) and given noassignment.Then he got Pittsburgh.Very talented and possesing greart media savvy he has lamentably become more liberal so much that he was removed fromEWTN (which coincided with his chabge from wearing a cassock to a suit during his talk). He was rebuked by JPII when he sent greetings to a meeting of CORPUS (the organization of masrried proests). He is orthodox and not a heretic;he is a run of the mill conservative.He is neithe a JPII or Benedict or for that matter a McCarrick. May God prove me wrong-but Washington needed better.
Iosephus no speak with forked tongue, kimo sabe. Washington: the best place for another glorious mess.
Josephus,You are mistaken: he is doing, what he is doing, there is nothing more to expect. A dissimilar personality would never have survived or been eligible for the pontificate of JP II.
Oh, for those who would like to read Mother's Watch's report on Bishop Wuerl:http://www.christorchaos.com/SeeNoHegelHearNoHegel.htmlat the end of the document, reprints the entire report, which originally appeared in their 1996 newsletter.I hate to say: Read it and gasp!But ...
If the facts reported about him are, well, facts, then the word "hireling" leaps to mind, for which Wuerl is a synonym.If, the facts, are, well, facts, and if this man is orthodox I'm a free will independent fundamentalist baptist.If these facts, are, well, facts, then either he is catholic, or I am, or neither of us are; we both can't be at the same time, it's not possible.Our Lady of Good Success...HELP!
Simon Peter,A catholic can be a bad catholic, a bishop an unfaithful shepherd; but both still be catholic; after all, the Church is not an Ark for those who are already just, but for sinners.No matter how many sick or how sick the patients in a hospital, no one complains about there being sick in a hospital. What is tragic, is when the doctors are spreading disease and the Surgeon General in Rome is doing precious little about it.Are the staff some sort of Mafia, that the Surgeon General need fear them, more than fear patients dying and a plague breaking out?Let us pray for the Pope. St. Alphonsus says, that if men only understood the almost impossible situation to be saved, for those who accept bishoprics and the office of the Pope (he said all in these officies but the canonized are presumed damned), there would be much distress at such appointments on the part of the nominees. But how glibly and quickly men thrust themselves into those places in which Angels would not dare to step!
I understand Brother, but that's not what I meant when I said:"If these facts, are, well, facts, then either he is catholic, or I am, or neither of us are; we both can't be at the same time, it's not possible."I was also being slightly flippant. If my QB keeps throwing interceptions to the secondary, series after series, or bizarely throwing long on every screen, or taking a knee on every 3rd and short, I have to wonder that, despite his name on the locker, despite his uniform with his name on the back, he really is for some reason, playing for the other guys.If the rules have changed, if the object is now to rack up negative yardage in the air and on the ground, if the goal is to spend as much time as possible within our own 20, if the winner is decided on how many fumbles and sacks go against him, or how many fans don't renew their season tickets, or whether we can empty the stadium completely and sell it off to some other team, then I need to be told because I'm TRYING to play a different game by the rule book and using the plays off the chalk board. It is one thing to fail to live up to the high demands of the truth (if we say we sin we lie and the truth is not in us), it is quite another to deny the truth. I cannot suspend my reason nor pretend to be blind. We are all sick, but that is not the issue either. What can you say of a doctor who denies his patients are sick unto death (the Divine diagnosis) or if recognizing them as sick denies them, by inaction and omission, the whole cure, untainted by foreign bodies, and as prescribed by the Divine physician?Yes the Church is for those who are sick (all mankind) and also being made well (a lot of mankind, but not enough). It is not for those who are, by act or omission, trying to smother the patients in their beds or as they arise and begin walking dousing them with chloroform telling them its smelling salts. Until such people cease and dissist they should be put outside the hospital walls. Anyway, as ever, thankyou for your kindly correction.
Simon Peter,The most common expectation is that the Church in all Her institutions is staffed and ruled by men who are motivated primarily and consistently and only by the Faith and grace.But the Church in Her members is human; and there is every kind of human motivation among the members of the Church, among the staff of ecclesial institutions, and among those who have been placed over us as Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, or superiors.We would all hope that the Pope appoints Only and Always men of faith, devotion and virtue to the offices of Bishop and Cardinal.But, that is not the case with most popes. Mostly, thorughout history, the pope nominates friends of friends or just without distinction gives honors to every group and faction which already has authority and influence in its region, as a way of buying their loyalty.That is what has been going on since the founding of the Catholic Church in the USA, for the most part.However, I join you in hoping, and in praying, that the Lord sends us men who have such confidence in Him and His Holy Spirit, that they will entrust such high offices to men who are of God and faithful to the Faith in all things, knowing that whatsoever the local reaction, the laity will support him, that is, the laity who count for anything.You cannot grow good crops if you sow bad seed. There have been many authors, especially historians, who have amply shown how much of the failure of the Church to evangelize, lies not so much on the laity, the clergy, or the bishops, but on an undue confience of the Apostolic See in working within existing cultural and political structures, without much regard for the purity of the Faith, of morals, and for the integrity of the candicates for the episcopacy.But Our Lord is patient, because no matter what sins are committed, no one, not even the hierarchy can destroy His Church. If Christ endured the Cross for us, then we have to endure the rotten apples the Pope sends, too.
Post a Comment