Priests Fume About Slow Service (and Catholicism)

Update: I was mulling over this episode and was still a little curious as to why NcR would ever report this lame piece and it suddenly dawned on me. Guess what’s coming in ten days? The 2019 USCCB General Assembly.  Now guess who is up for president? Archbishop Cordileone. The liberals have literally been trying to get him removed from SF since he got there. They know if he’s elected that will be the death knell for their campaign. Bishops. if you ever want to send a message to liberal dissenters trying take down faithful bishops, this might be your chance. Also, you’d be securing an amazing seminary in the West for decades to come. At least this explains the extra dose of insanity.

Holy smokes! I got some not so happy messages from some of the San Francisco Archdiocese people over this ridiculous article. They are none to happy about the attack on Archbishop Cordileone and neither are the people in his old flock across the Bay.

After reading it, I almost can’t see why because it was rather laughable. But, yeah, it was obnoxious so let me explain to the people across the country and the world what’s really going on here. I HOPE some priests in that diocese will stand up for the archbishop. And, on the heals of my last article, (link) feel free to make it anonymous.  As you can all see from the article below, there are supposedly a few “unnamed” priests weighing in.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/san-francisco-priests-voice-frustrations-cordileone-convocation

San Francisco priests voice frustrations with Cordileone at convocation

Oct 31, 2019

by Dan Morris-Young ParishPeople

Simmering acrimony over the decision-making, communications and mindset of the much-watched seven-year episcopacy of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone breached the surface of an early October convocation of clergy, surprising many and leaving questions about the future between the prelate and much of his presbyterate.

Simmering acrimony? More like underhanded move by a bunch of priests who were just allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted for decades are actually being called to be shepherds of souls and they HATE it. There’s no simmering. They whine and cry to National Catholic Reporter any darn chance they get. NcR is on speed-dial. This isn’t the first time they’ve called them regarding what should be a meeting of their fellow priests. They’ve even done this over “Councils of Priests” meetings (think deanery meetings).  It’s their way of trying to intimidate the faithful crowd from saying or doing anything. Thankfully more of them have had it. The idea that there’s some “question about Archbishop Cordileone’s future” is a sell job by the old dissenting cronies who want to do the best they can to try and take him down on the way out the door to retirement.

At one point during the Sept. 30-Oct. 3 gathering at Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove, California, Cordileone is said to have said, “I do not understand you, and you do not understand me,” while he also told the 145 priests attending, “I love you.”

And, I’d like to point out that this is where the anonymous kind of sort of quotes start. I can affirm, by all accounts, that Archbishop Cordileone loves his entire flock while some of his priests love, well, themselves. Honestly, they’re like teens who’ve never had supervision and who suddenly were taken in by a parent who cared enough about them to place restrictions on them. All you parents will understand that it is never easy to turn the unruly child around but these are grown men, for goodness sake. They know their parishes are empty. They know their coffers are low. In fact, the churches that are doing well are the faithful ones and, while they can fill their annual bishops appeal in no time, the liberal churches struggle meeting it at all because their parishioners are as apathetic as they are.

A summary of the assembly prepared by its organizing committee for the Oct. 10 regular meeting of the archdiocesan Presbyteral Council synthesized the key deliberations:

“On Tuesday evening [Oct. 1], the group seemed to come to a near consensus that the priests of the Archdiocese desire greater communication and collaboration with the Archbishop in making key decisions.”

I’m just curious as to where NcR got this summary.  Anyone?

Missing, however, was the depth of emotion and frustration expressed during general session exchanges at which the archbishop and moderator of the curia, Jesuit Fr. John Piderit, were not present, several participants told NCR.

“Several participants?” How many? Who is disseminating this information? Yeah, you see where I’m going. If EVERYONE is in agreement with these desires and there’s such consensus, why all the emotion when Archbishop Cordileone and Fr. John Piderit (I’d like to SJ which was curiously left off) weren’t even in the room?

“Laid bare, they said, were tensions over muddy communications, lack of authentic consultation, low clergy morale, unilateral initiatives by Cordileone, and the archbishop’s embrace of “the model of a pre-Vatican II church,” in the words of one pastor.”

Hats off to you Dan Morris-Young for the heart wrenching dramatic description of events. I hate to tell the whiners but unilateral initiatives are totally fine. And, really, which “unilateral initiative” are they protesting? None are given are they?  And what in THE heck is a “the model of a pre-Vatican II church” to the one unnamed pastor??? Uh, Perpetual Adoration? Rosary Rallies? Eucharistic Processions? Or is it one where the bishop actually does his job? Do you know how many parishes have an Extra-Ordinary Form Mass out of eighty-nine? From the information I can find a whopping seven. Archbishop Cordileone certainly hasn’t imposed this on any parish. It has been allowed at the pastors request so stop acting like it’s being foisted on you as you wail and gnash your teeth. You know the reality, you’re jealous some people are leaving you to go to them. Jealous much?

Words such as “bombshell,” “volatile,” “anger” and “pain” were used in recounting general session comments.

Oh the humanity!!!!! This crew is spinning hard for the media, as always.

 Some attendees, however, told NCR that Cordileone enjoys steady clerical “appreciation and agreement” with his ecclesiology among many priests, notably younger men.

Fr. Roger Gustafson, chair of the organizing committee, said he was “very encouraged by the results” of the conference.

“While it was painful at points to facilitate an honest discussion about some of the issues in the relationship between the priests and archdiocesan leadership,” he wrote in an email, “I am convinced that the process ultimately will result in positive improvements with respect to morale, communication, mutual understanding, and most importantly greater effectiveness in priestly ministry.”

You couldn’t pay me to do this job. I’m a mom, I couldn’t put up with the drama. Despite the NcR report, there are many great priests who care for souls and want to join together with their bishop to do so. And then you’ve got the “cool kids” table trying to intimidate and bully everyone into submission. It’s really sad when the one of the guys who’s actually willing to give his name says honest discussion was hard.  Nobody wants to deal with this crud.  They just want to live their vocations and yet their constantly subjected to drama. I’d like to draw you attention to a past blog post  because this shows the kind of people with whom the Archdiocese of San Francisco has to deal. Again, a private meeting was leaked to the press. It really shows the usual level of duplicity. Still can’t figure out why they can’t see why it makes them looks so awful. Note that Fr. Strange and Bishop McElroy (auxiliary bishop at the time) weren’t incensed about anything being put on them. They were complaining about them not be consulted on what was happening in someone else’s parish. Still un-flipping-believable every time. If Fr. Strange isn’t involved in this new attack, I’d be shocked.

“Noting that the gathering followed a format pioneered by Patrick Lencioni, founder of the Amazing Parish program, Gustafson said he hoped an impression would not emerge that the convocation was “only two polarized groups of priests when it seems to me that the majority fall somewhere in the middle and are open to moving forward.”

Believe me, Lencioni probably hasn’t met the likes of the insanity in San Francisco. If they can make it there, they’ll make it anywhere! I’ve heard good things about this program but I’m pretty sure if you’ve got a group who’s hell bent on sabotaging the outcome, it’s going to take a lot of the good priests to drown them out.

“To my mind,” Gustafson, pastor of San Francisco’s St. Brendan Parish, told NCR, “the convocation accomplished the first step of intentionally bringing conflict out into the open so that it can be dealt with. We are now moving to the second step of putting structures into place to address the underlying basis of the conflict.”

The problem is, the dissenters don’t want to bring conflict out in the open. They want to bring their drama to the press.

A priest who has expressed concerns about priest morale in the past said that the objective should “not be to shame the archbishop, but to improve the archdiocese. I would like this to have a chance to unfold under the best of conditions.”

Sounds like he’s a priest with the best of intentions.

The assembly was the third such gathering since Cordileone was installed on Oct. 4, 2012, and apparently the best-attended and most free-wheeling.

So, in short, some progress is being made now that, after 7 years, some are getting over the “Cordileone bad!” mantra of those who loved their, how should we say, freedom. Their influence is fading away.

Central to deliberations were deanery-defined table-group discussions.

According to participants, conversations among groups of six to eight at about two dozen tables reached consensus Oct. 1 when each group was directed to share one item for immediate attention by archdiocesan administrators.

“It was like boom, boom, boom” as the results were announced, said one participant. “Nearly every table named poor communications from the archbishop and chancery — and exclusion of priests from key decisions in the archdiocese.”

And, so, why is any of this a problem? This is what Archbishop Cordileone wanted to get. If he didn’t why the effort to get attendance up, hire a third body program, etc.? Somehow this is labeled as a bad thing. I don’t have verification that this characterization of the round tables was quite sincere and it is another anonymous “participant” so we’ll likely not know.

“Honestly, I was stunned by the frankness,” the priest added, “and this included tables where there were young guys who see the archbishop as doing nothing wrong. I did not expect this kind of consensus.”

Again, this is anonymous priest take on this. I also find it interesting that “nearly all the tables” came up with not the number one problem but the same two. I’m still wondering what the need to be in charge of the key decisions in the diocese is all about. How is this the job of the parish priest. Again, I remind you of my previous blog post. Some of these egos thing they should be consulted on EVERYTHING. Why? This isn’t some pre-Vatican II notion that the bishop is the head of the diocese. Last time I checked that was his job.

Can. 381 §1 In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan Bishop has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme or to some other ecclesiastical authority.

He doesn’t have to run anything by anyone and sometimes, yes, he will make unilateral decisions just like EVERY bishop.  Please, name one that hasn’t. And really, one has to ask, if the priests of the diocese make decisions without him?  I can assure you they do and they make ones he wouldn’t not approve but, hey, he’s the super mean guy.

The organizing committee’s summary said that consultants from the Evangelium Consulting Group “suggested a pilot program in which one deanery be selected to meet regularly with the Archbishop to provide advice and counsel and this mechanism seemed to receive widespread approval.”

So the plan is to try to meet regularly with the priests who want to be heard. Let me guess, somebody, after whining about not have a say, is going to complain because they will get the chance for communication and consultation?

One priest said he hoped the pilot project and overall meeting would encourage “greater fraternity, cohesion, trust, healthy conflict, communication and collegiality, not only between the archbishop and his priests … but also among the priests themselves.”

Others were skeptical. “Inviting the archbishop to dinner is not going to solve the communications problem,” said one. “Long term, there is probably not going to be much change unless the archbishop changes lanes, and that would be going against everything he has been doing so far.

More bluntly, another veteran pastor pronounced the convocation “an elaborate exercise in futility.”

So yes. Yes they are going to complain. Do you see how it goes here? I’m mean, do they realize how childish they look???  Even National catholic Reporter can’t save them!  “We’re mad because you don’t communicate and consult with us. Oh you will?! It’s futile unless you do what we want!” I’m starting to think they’re all taking advantage of the legalization of marijuana at this point. It’s insane.

Cordileone apparently did not directly respond to the priests’ concerns Oct. 2 until after he had spoken at length about topics close to him, including St. Patrick’s Seminary and University, stewardship, and liturgical celebration as encouraged at the Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music and Divine Worship, which he established on the seminary’s Menlo Park campus.

Some priests found the delay disconcerting.

“Oh my gosh! He didn’t respond for, like, forty-five minutes to our demands!” Seriously? How can you have input in plans if you don’t know what they are??? So, they just want to rant to him and he can’t try and talk like adults to him.  Honestly, Archbishop Cordileone must have the patience of Job. A one way street doesn’t work in my house. How about yours?

When the archbishop did address the communications and decision-making questions, priests told NCR that, in the words of one, “he made it pretty clear we were wrong and we did not understand the way he makes decisions.”

“Some guys were disheartened, and a handful just left quietly, dismissing themselves from the meeting,” the priest continued.

He and others described as “a kind of breakthrough moment” when Cordileone “basically said, ‘I do not understand you and you do not understand me,’ ” but also added, “I love you.”

Wow! “I love you!” is so mean they had to mention it twice! So, these knuckleheads stomped off and hoped really hard they could start a mass exodus. That’s so messed up. It didn’t happen despite the supposed “consensus.” And Cordileone hearsay “basically said” translates into “probably didn’t even remotely say but we’re going to suggest it did.” Sigh.

Gustafson and others lauded Cordileone for being “vulnerable” and leading the sharing of personal reflections and history during the sessions aimed at community-building among priests.

But Father! Archbishop Cordileone didn’t answer the questions before he made a presentation!!! He’s awful! (That was sarcasm.)

“I admire the archbishop for his courage,” commented Gustafson. “I can only assume that many, if not most, dioceses have similar areas of tension and concern, and I imagine there are many prelates who would never allow such an open and sincere discussion. … Overall, it was a very positive experience.”

Thank you Fr. Gustafason.

Not for others, including Fr. David Ghiorso, pastor of St. Charles Parish in San Carlos, California*, who has publicly questioned Cordileone’s actions in the past.

Also one of the conspirators listed in past blog. Notice? The same names pop up over and over again. If there’s an abundance of these goofs, where are they? Aren’t they lining up to take pot shots? Their breed is dying off or, at the very least, just getting tired. I think they got it right when they said “handful.”

“The core issue that surfaced for me is lack of trust in the administration of the archdiocese,” he emailed NCR. “I am not sure if others feel the same. With lack of trust comes lack of respect and this is very difficult to deal with as a priest. We do promise respect and obedience to our bishop and when that is not present it is a problem.”

Uh, yeah, it’s a problem and you’re only willing to give obedience and respect if the archbishop does what they want. If you were going to put contingencies on your promise, maybe you shouldn’t have made it in the first place. I’d love to know what advice they give to the couples preparing for marriage? “Whatever you vow is only contingent on your spouse making you happy?”

“At one point as the archbishop spoke of the Benedict XVI Institute, I got the image of the Titanic going down, but the choir chanting on the bow of the ship,” Ghiorso said. Cordileone’s affinity for Latin liturgy and Gregorian chant is well-known.”

“Ghiorso called himself “a passive observer in the general sessions by choice” and noted he had “promised my team back at the parish that I would keep my mouth shut for my own mental, spiritual and emotional health.”

“Do I believe anything will come from this gathering?” he asked. “The answer is, ‘No.’ Promises of sending out the results of the general session will never happen because they were so volatile.”

So Fr. Ghiorso wants to flap his gums behind the archbishop’s back to the press but saying something in a place that might possibly be constructive he basically chickened out. Your “team” probably should have just told you to keep your mouth shut indefinitely.

Observed another: “The level of the display of hardcore criticism against the archbishop throughout the convocation was revealing but not surprising. Most priests now know they are not alone in their estrangement from the archbishop. The archbishop has consistently attempted to move the archdiocese back into the 19th century. The seminary is a prime example.”

What is this? Anonymous priest number what? I’ve lost count? Five? I guess that might constitute a handful. Hey, I’ll hand it to Fr. Ghiorso with his “Yeah, I said it to the press!” attitude. To bad he couldn’t man up in person. You tend to keep quiet when you know your posse is dwindling and the tides are turning.

Last time I checked, they did that whole Gregorian Chant thing at St. Peter’s and, hey, a whole lot of churches and cathedrals around the country including yours even before Archbishop Cordileone. I’d love to know what else he thinks brings it back to the “19th century” (What does that even mean?) Actual Catholicism?

<Snipping old news they keep regurgitating as if it matters.>

As of Oct. 31, requests for comment from Cordileone were unsuccessful.

Oh come on, do you really expect him to call out priests in the press? That’s your thing. He’s taking the high road unlike the snakes in his diocese. How does one expect to make any conciliatory moves by duking it out in the press? I guess we’ll have to ask the anonymous priests and Fr. Ghiorso.

A retired priest told NCR, “The priests I talked to had the impression that Sal lives in his own world, cut off from what is real, and they feel helpless to find some relief from present church structure. At least the archbishop knows that he is not supported by his priests.

That retired priest, however, would belong to what Fr. Joseph Illo calls “a powerful, well-established older group of priests who have worked decades in the archdiocese and done much good work over the years, but who are having trouble accepting changes in our local church, and especially with a new archbishop.”

Ooooh! I don’t know. Who’s living in the fantasy land? I think that might be you anonymous “retired priest.” But thanks for summing up the lack respect that was supposedly promised to their archbishop. “Sal.”

A Cordileone loyalist, Illo asserted that “most priests are with the archbishop and share his ecclesiology in general” and that “if you took an anonymous poll … I’m quite sure that well over half the clergy would express appreciation and agreement with the archbishop’s theology. This is particularly true of priests under 40.”

And now we’re going to start heading into really old news land in keeping with the “let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” maneuver.

No immediate headcount for 40-and-younger ordained was available, but an archdiocesan official told NCR, “Not very many.”

About 385 priests serve within the archdiocese, according to archdiocesan communications director Mike Brown.

Almost half are incardinated archdiocesan priests who have a median age of 67. Just under 40% of the balance are religious order members, and another 55 are from other dioceses.

And this is what terrifies the “Old Guard.” The young priests LOVE the archbishop and half of the priests in the diocese are under sixty-seven. And, yes, I am now older than way too many priests with more on the way BECAUSE the archbishop is the bomb. Nobody’s harassing seminarians anymore and vocations are being fostered. I’ve been AMAZED at the quality of the younger guys. The only ones entrenched in their hate are in the over sixty club.  And, let’s go over this again, the median age is sixty-seven??????? Half of them are older than that? Yeah, Archbishop Cordileone is NOT the problem here. It started a looooonnnngggg time ago.

<Snipping Fr. Illo comments just simply because NcR is kind of obsessed with him and it’s getting old. In short, great guy but, again, NcR’s desire to bring him into all of their pieces is getting ridiculous. Search my site if you want to know about him.>

Fr. Jose Shaji, pastor of St. Anselm Parish in Ross, north of San Francisco, predicted “nothing” will ultimately result from the Asilomar gathering despite the frank feedback it generated.

After an Oct. 6 evening mass, Shaji asked parishioners to pray for priests of the archdiocese, saying that clerical morale was the lowest he had experienced in his 17 years in the see.

“When I arrived here,” the native of India told NCR, “it was like coming home. But now it feels more like a place of employment.”

Then-Archbishop William Levada headed the archdiocese when Shaji arrived, succeeded in 2005 by Archbishop George Niederauer, who retired in 2012 and died in 2017. Later named a cardinal and head of the Vatican’s powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Levada died Sept. 26 of this year.

A longstanding pastor who attended the convocation said many “see this as kind of a last chance, and the guys are not going to drink from this well again,” an allusion to past encouragement to speak openly only to be ignored or marginalized.

So, again, a plan to figure out how to meet with the priests at their deanery meetings to communicate and gain input, something they SAID they wanted is now ignoring and marginalizing? Like I said, even National catholic Review couldn’t spin the truth enough to make these guys look anything but insane.

<And snipping the excessive repeating of old news.>

Faithful in the San Francisco Archdiocese, you better make some loud noises over this one. I realize most of you don’t go to their parishes because, like me, you have little tolerance for dissent but I really feel like some open letters, at the very least, are warranted. And please, write many many letters of support.

 

Schism for Dummies

The charges of schism being thrown around are getting a bit ridiculous.  Let’s chat, shall we?

First, what ISN’T schism.

Schism isn’t a dislike for the Holy Father’s leadership style. Schism is not questioning things put forth in a “working document.” Schism is not asking people to pray and fast that the crud put forth in a working document never sees the light of day in any final document proposed by the Church. Schism isn’t asking the Holy Father to make clear the teaching put forth in a document (i.e., the dubia). Schism isn’t wishing the Holy Father would never speak again to reporters on a plane. Schism is not EWTN reporting on Catholic news.  Schism is not Archbishop Vigano putting out his testimony. Schism isn’t even asking the Holy Father to resign. Schism isn’t a critique of how the Vatican or Holy Father is handling the abuse scandal.  Schism isn’t supporting Archbishop Vigano’s request for an investigation into the whole McCarrick debacle.

I’ve seen some ridiculous half-wit “theologians” suggesting that pretty much anyone who disagrees with THEM is schismatic. They seem to think that if they bandy the word around enough, the “uneducated masses” will be whipped into submission by the mere thought of it. They even put forth the question to the Holy Father on a plane (who, by the way, said there was no schism at this time) and got him to say the word which, somehow, is supposed to give their charges validation. “A-ha!  The pope said the word so you are in schism!” WRONG!

Let me give you a little list of all the people who have been charged with schism by the liberal Catholic elite.  Let’s see, Archbishop Vigano, for sure; Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Strickland of Tyler, and Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, because they were three of MANY bishops who said the charges made by Archbishop Vigano should be investigated; Cardinals Burke and Brandmueller, because they dared to ask the Holy Father for clarification in their dubia; Archbishop Schneider, because he and Cardinal Burke asked people to pray and fast  before the synod, because of the pretty awful stuff is being discussed. (Prayer and fasting – the horrors! How dare they?!) I guess all of EWTN can be counted, too, because Raymond Arroyo dared to defend himself when a book about how EWTN was trying to overthrow the Holy Father was glorified on a flight. Oh, and EWTN, again, for broadcasting a Mass where the priest giving the homily said that the faithful was being asked to pray and fast before the upcoming “Amazon Synod.” I’d love to know what they are scared of. You want to fast and pray for me?  Please do. And, of course, there’re all those mean Catholic bloggers, radio hosts, commentators, etc., who are scratching their heads about some things the pope says. Yep, all are in schism, it seems, except those who want to change any Church teaching that doesn’t jive with their ideologies.

So, who are all the people declaring or suggesting schism? Thomas Reese, SJ, Massimo Faggioli, Dawn Eden Goldstein, Michael Sean Winters, and all of their ilk.  And don’t forget, the “Well, I didn’t say they were in schism.  I’m just retweeting something I thought was interesting!” crowd. (Yes, Fr. Martin, I mean you.)

The actual definition of schism found in Canon 751 goes like this

Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Ironically, none of the accusers are canon lawyers, but they accuse a good canon lawyers to be in schism.  Let’s see, who knows Canon Law better?

The other thing I find totally ridiculous, especially after this week, is that not one of these accusers has pointed toward Germany.  In fact, I failed to locate one story at National catholic Reporter on this as of this writing. If it exists, their search engines don’t work.  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/marx-says-german-synod-will-proceed-despite-vatican-objections-82211  Why is this? This is a hell of a lot closer to schism (if not actually in schism) than anything else to which the NcR, America Magazine, or Commonweal types point. I mean, the German bishops were told by the Magisterium that their “binding synodal path” was “not ecclesiologically valid.” Their response? We’re doing it anyway. Who’s removing “submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” again? Apparently, Cardinal Marx.!

Does anyone see the difference in asking the Holy Father to exercise his authority (a la the Dubia 4, Archbishop Vigano, etc.) and rejecting an instruction from the Magisterium as the Germans are doing? The faithful Catholics are appealing to the very authority they should, while the Germans are usurping authority they don’t have. American schism, my foot! The liberals pushing for a declaration of schism are the biggest hypocrites around. Not one of the faithful listed above and accused by the liberals has ever rejected the authority of Pope Francis. In fact, they’ve made request upon request to the Pope to clarify.  To top it off, not even Pope Francis has declared them such. So, not only are the liberal accusers actually willing to reject authority when it suits them, they are also willing to usurp authority where they have none. They need to give it a rest, but sadly, they won’t.

 

And Another Thing, Massimo…

I’d really, really like you to explain why you singled out three bishops whom you declared “devout schismatics” when there are 40ish American bishops (depending when the list was published and who has since passed away) who declared support, admiration, or simple credibility of Archbishop Vigano’s letters. Where’s the accusation of “devout schism” for all of them? I’m reasonably sure most are also fans of the Rosary, oppose candidates being pro-abortion, and fight for traditional marriage. I realize that these are things you would consider a part of a “particular conservative political culture,” but most of us simply call that “Catholic.” I know you still have a problem understanding that distinction, so how come they didn’t make the schismatic list you’re creating in your head? I mean, I would at least think Bishop Paprocki and Bishop Thomas Tobin would have made your list! By the way, these lists below of supporting bishops are from last year, too. Wonder where the number is now that so much more of his testimony has been proven to be true by others? Hmmm, Massimo?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/9av4d1/the_growing_list_of_catholic_prelates_and_other/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/list-of-bishops-cardinals-who-support-investigating-viganos-claims-live-upd

It would seem you must have some personal vendetta against these particular bishops to overlook the vast number of others who believe the same way. I realize that you’re banking on the faithful not to bother fact checking anything you say, but you might have learned by now that’s not going to happen.

I think Villanova might want to reconsider Massimo’s employment for, at best, rash judgment. It is kind of a big deal, Villanova, when one of your employees declares some pretty awesome bishops to be in schism. How many of your other employees fail to have a rudimentary knowledge of the definition of schism and also leap to rash judgment? Not really a selling point for your university.

Might be nice to drop Villanova a big ol’ note. 

Rev. Peter M. Donohue, OSA
Office of the President
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085-1699

Phone: 610-519-8881
Fax: 610-519-4514

Email: president@villanova.edu

Alumni, you can also go here:

Alumni Relations
Garey Hall

Phone: 610-519-4580
Fax: 610-519-7583

Email: alumni@villanova.edu

 

Massimo’s “Look at Me!” Moment (AKA, Life)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/villanova-historian-says-chaput-cordileone-and-strickland-are-devout-schismatics-18811

Philadelphia, Pa., Jul 18, 2019 / 06:35 pm (CNA).- A Church historian at Philadelphia’s Villanova University has said three U.S. bishops are “devout schismatics” who try to diminish the authority of Pope Francis.

“They are devout in the sense that they publicly display their preference for a traditionalist Church and its devotions, such as the rosary. They are schismatics because they openly promote the undermining of the bishop of Rome among the Catholic faithful,” Massimo Faggioli wrote in a July 16 essay for La Croix magazine.”

What the what???? Does the Rosary scare you that much, Massimo? Seriously, this is the most outlandish accusation I’ve EVER seen. We’re going to lump saying the Rosary with removing submission to the bishop of Rome????  Really?!?!?! This really deserves about a hundred more punctuation marks but…?!?!?!?!?!?!  Massimo kind of needs to take a sabbatical and reflect on, well, anything other than himself.

Massimo has got no game, so he’s just going to throw out the schismatic bomb with ZERO back up. When has Cordileone, Strickland, or Chaput EVER removed submission from the Holy Father? The “Let’s throw it out there and see if it sticks” method won’t work here, because I, and anyone with half a brain or access to Google, am going to call you on this.

Faggioli made specific mention of three U.S. bishops: Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, and Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas.

The historian said the “schismatic instincts” of those bishops were manifested when in August 2018, when they “sided with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio to Washington who called on Francis to resign.”

Hey, Massimo, which bishops/archbishops called on Francis to resign? Oh, yeah, none.  Give me a break. You know very well that some of them appealed to Pope Francis to respond to the “Vigano” letters, while others just said that Vigano was simply a man of virtue and that the whole thing was troubling and should be dealt with. It’s quite interesting you seemed to focus on those who most defy your mission in life, since there are many others who sided with them, but whatever.

Viganò released on Aug. 25, 2018 a “testimony,” which, among other things, accused Pope Francis of ignoring warnings about former cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual deviancy, and then raising McCarrick’s status within the Vatican.

After the testimony was released, Strickland issued a statement calling Vigano’s allegations “credible,” and Cordileone said he could confirm that some of Vigano’s statements were true.

Do you have doubt of that, Massimo?! I think we can safely say that many of Archbishop Vigano’s statements have been proven to be quite true over the last year. Are you saying otherwise? If so, which ones? Put your money where your keyboard is. Regardless, neither of these statements would constitute “schism” as you would suggest. I realize you’re just an historian and not a canon lawyer but maybe you should actually a look at the definition of “schism” before you start flapping you gums. 

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.  

The article goes on…

Contrary to Faggioli’s claim, however, Chaput did not endorse Vigano’s allegations. While a spokesman told reporters in August that Chaput “enjoyed working with Archbishop Vigano during his tenure as Apostolic Nuncio,” he declined to comment on the former nuncio’s allegations.

Oops!

The spokesman said that the Chaput could not comment “on Archbishop Vigano’s recent testimonial as it is beyond his personal experience.”

In 2013, Chaput told radio personality Hugh Hewitt that the election of Pope Francis had made him “extraordinarily happy, because quite honestly, he is the man I was hoping would be Pope eight years ago.”

Double oops!

Two years later, Chaput hosted Pope Francis in Philadelphia for the 2015 World Meeting of Families. Reflecting in 2018 on that meeting, Chaput wrote that the pope’s “time with us was filled with powerful public moments and deeply grace filled intimate gatherings hallmarked by an overarching spirit of mercy, compassion, and charity.”

“[Pope Francis] has repeatedly challenged us to bear witness to Christ through concrete action—by serving the poor, by helping immigrants, by preserving families, and by protecting the sanctity of life. It’s the kind of challenge we can and should answer with a hearty yes each day,” Chaput added.

You’re a three time loser, Massimo. 

In his essay criticizing “devout schismatics,” Faggioli wrote that “dissent against this pope has become radicalized with schismatic instincts because this kind of political devotion is more about a partisan ideology than about the Church. Catholicism was exposed to ideological manipulation by those who do not really care for the Gospel, but who are more interested in a particular conservative political culture.”

“Particular conservative political culture?” Normally if you follow the teachings of the Church and Canon Law, you’re considered a faithful Catholic. In Massimo’s mind you’re somehow “interested in a particular conservative political culture.” I totally agree that Catholicism was exposed to ideological manipulation but it had little to do with a “particular conservative political culture” and everything to do with a bunch of narcissistic, liberal minded ideologues that thought of themselves far more than they ever thought of the teachings of the Church!

“Chaput, among those identified as a “devout schismatic,” has frequently emphasized his unwillingness to align with a political party.”

So, Massimo is totally wrong again. Shocker.

Just a few more little pesky facts Massimo didn’t bother to look into before he started spouting off. Both Archbishop Cordileone and Bishop Strickland are canon lawyers.  They might know a thing or two about schism even if Massimo doesn’t quite get it. Next, Archbishop Chaput campaigned for Robert Kennedy and supported the election of Jimmy Carter. Of course, today’s democrat isn’t grandma and granpa’s democrat but still. Archbishop Chaput has made it quite clear that the teachings of the Church trump all political parties.  http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121205203427/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204504.htm

Last time I checked, Massimo does not have canonical jurisdiction to declare schism and his lack of knowledge on the matter gives him even less jurisdiction. If “devout” is a reason to declare “schism”, then a whole lot of people are going to be found in such a place. This is just stupid.

In 2016 he criticized Catholics, especially politicians, who accept “the transfer of our real loyalties and convictions from the old Church of our baptism to the new ‘Church’ of our ambitions and appetites,’ in order to achieve political or personal goals. The group of those who do so “cuts across…both major political parties,” Chaput said.:

“Quite a few of us American Catholics have worked our way into a leadership class that the rest of the country both envies and resents. And the price of our entry has been the transfer of our real loyalties and convictions from the old Church of our baptism to the new “Church” of our ambitions and appetites. People like Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Kennedy, Joe Biden and Tim Kaine are not anomalies. They’re part of a very large crowd that cuts across all professions and both major political parties.”

And? There’s a problem with that statement, Massimo? If Massimo considers Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden to be faithful Catholics, I have oceanfront property in Iowa to sell him. By the way, here’s the quote in context. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-new-kind-of-sacrament

The Church’s canon law defines schism, the charge Faggioli makes against the three bishops, as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

See? And while Massimo is totally happy to declare three bishops schismatics, he’s perfectly fine not showing proof when he declares them such.

Faggioli could not be reached for comment.

Totally not surprising. He’s stepped in it deeper than normal and can’t actually back up the accusations. Don’t you kind of feel like he lost a bet with someone? I guess when someone jumps the shark this big you kind of hope there’s some sort of rational explanation for it. Maybe his ratings are down?

Show Us the Mercy!

Sometimes I wish some of these priests would really get into the Year of Mercy and show us a little by retiring already! Why is it that priests in my diocese, careening toward retirement, try to be as obnoxious as they can be on their way out the door?  Now, Fr. Gerard Moran actually hasn’t been one of more obnoxious players in the Oakland diocese, and I’ve never had much of a problem with him other than people finding him a bit unapproachable, but since he decided to go there, here I go. 

Before I start, I would like to tell the dear priests of my diocese: when someone forwards me a nice public statement from you that’s seditious (McGrath isn’t the only one who can use that term), I will respond!  Please don’t feign shock that somebody was horrified by your actions.  You can’t claim you didn’t know.  Fr. Richard Mangini learned that little lesson last year (https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/deep-thoughts-from-fr-richard/).

Here’s the lovely little screed Fr. Moran decided to put in his bulletin today.  I’m hoping the good parishioners of St. Isidore’s will drop our bishop a line with their disgust. 

https://www.e-churchbulletins.com/bulletins/513992.pdf

A SAD DAY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WESTERN UNITED STATES!

On October 24, we received the sad news that the Sulpician Fathers would be withdrawing from St. Patrick’s Seminary and University, Menlo Park. In 1884, Archbishop Alemany recruited Sulpician priests to found a seminary to train priests for his vast archdiocese.

Please note, the Sulpicians were not thrown out.  They withdrew, as Fr. Moran correctly said, and from what I understand, it was the mothership that called the remaining Sulpicians at St. Patrick’s home, not their boots on the ground requesting to leave.  By all accounts, the Sulpicians working there now are very faithful priests, so thank you to them! 

The Sulpicians were founded in 1641 by Fr. Olier in the parish of St. Sulpice in Paris. He founded a seminary there to create a worthy secular priesthood. The newly ordained priests were sent to all parts of France, setting a new tone and model for diocesan priests.

And then somewhere along the way they went off the rails and started creating guys like Fr. Moran who don’t understand that the Church isn’t their private playground to do what they will.  They apparently were great at forming priests with a disdain and lack of respect for our hierarchical Church.  They started creating priests who would take their archbishop or bishop to task for taking his job seriously, as if it that is some sort of personality disorder.  It’s called being responsible.

St. Patrick’s Seminary was entrusted to the care of the priests of the Society of St. Sulpice by the archbishops of San Francisco since its founding. The seminary, under the direction of the Sulpicians, was incorporated in 1891; the first high school students were accepted into the Department of Classics in 1898; the Philosophy Department was added in 1902 and the Department of Theology in 1904.

St. Patrick’s Seminary has a truly special place in the hearts of the more than 2,000 priests and almost 40 bishops, including Bishop John S. Cummins, who have received their priestly formation from the Sulpician Fathers. Priests formed by the Sulpicians have touched the lives of countless individuals and families since 1898.

Sadly, until recently, St. Patrick’s has practically been a swear word for those of us who have had to live with the priests ordained there in the 60s and 70s and beyond.  If Bishop Cummins is supposed to be the poster child of what the Sulpicians produce, that would speak volumes as to why this is a grand opportunity for Archbishop Cordileone.

Those of us who were educated in Menlo Park treasure the very personal aspect of our relations with the Sulpicians; from our spiritual direction to our common prayer and to the lecture hall. Their life was a hidden life, a life of prayer, study, a life spent with their students, with an unqualified commitment to serving us and giving us the example of sacerdotal virtues.

Wow!  How awesome would it be if you were taught to treasure your relationship with your former bishop?  I realize it’s probably really hard on those who were used to the Bishop Cummins “do whatever you like” attitude and his overdose of “collegiality” when it came to his priests, but the faithful are REALLY happy to have a bishop and archbishop who are willing to sacrifice their personal happiness and put up with you to protect the faithful and form holy priests.

The Sulpicians were faced with the awesome task in the 1960’s of bridging a path between an older Theological view and the newer perspective being forged by the Second Vatican Council. A high priority was to introduce a course on ecumenism. Archbishop McGucken sanctioned a series of lectures by the noted authority at Stanford University, Robert McAfee Brown.

Unfortunately, they forgot to point out that we are not Protestants.  They might have wanted to form the priests in Catholicism before bringing in the Protestant guy to show you how to rebel.

The Sulpician, Fr. Ray Brown, published for seminarians a one-volume commentary on the Bible, which followed the directives of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical and taught us the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture. We seminarians saw Fr. Brown as a dedicated priest, who faithfully celebrated Mass each day and used the liturgical celebration to expound the written Word of God. Fr. Brown, the author of 40 books, was appointed by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Oh, my gosh, Father!  Really?  Fr. Ray Brown???  Oh, please!  Let’s just take a little look at him, shall we?  Pope St. John Paul II himself smacked down Brown’s silly notions: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525

Most Alumni or my generation have happy memories of Sulpician Father Frank Norris, who was a progressive thinker and supporter of the new developments of Vatican II having worked as a translator for non-Catholic observers during the final session of the Council. In spite of his constant demand as a speaker, he published a well-received book on the church, God’s Own People.

Hey, didn’t Yves Congar write the preface for that one?  That’s a whole other story, though.  Sigh!

The Sulpicians gave us a vision of Church which was wide and inclusive, not narrow and blinkered. Sadly, the Sulpicians have been on a collision course with Archbishop Cordileone since his appointment to San Francisco. He fired the rector, Fr. James McKearney, in mid-term 2013 and appointed Bishop Daly, without consultation, as intern rector. During my three years working with Salvatore Cordileone as Bishop of Oakland, I discovered characterological patterns in his behavior, including obsessive compulsive micromanagement. It is my hope and prayer that the three former Archbishops of San Francisco, John Quinn, Cardinal Levada and George Niederauer, will use their influence in Rome to see the Sulpician decision is not irrevocable.

Give me a break, Fr. Moran!  And now their order numbers somewhere around 300 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Priests_of_Saint_Sulpice), as opposed to an order like the Dominicans, which numbers around 6,000, but, hey, it was all Archbishop Cordileone’s fault.  He’s obviously been plotting since he was a small child to overthrow the Sulpicians once he became the guy in charge of the seminary.  Groaaaannnn!  Sorry.  It would seem that the Sulpicians are their own worst enemy, and they likely called their good guys home to rebuild their order before it fades into oblivion.  It was a smart move.

By all means, yes, let’s bring out Archbishop Quinn. You know, the guy who just advocated for the ordination of women?  My goodness, how about we just let the elderly live in peace?

I’m not really sure why you think Cardinal Levada or Archbishop Niederauer would go to bat for you, since they weren’t treated with any more respect than Archbishop Cordileone.  They were also the recipients of the liberals’ blindsides and questioning of their authority.  I’m reasonably sure they don’t want to have anything more to do with the likes of you and your ilk who pine for the “freer”  Bishop Cummins days of answering to nobody but your “internal whatever.”  It’s so sad you can’t see the difference between a good bishop and someone who is obsessive compulsive.  You’re so pompous, the idea of you having to follow the authority of anyone else can’t even be fathomed.  How dare a bishop lead his priests!  The nerve!  Yeah, the Sulpicians did a banner job with you.

 Fr. Moran, you owe the Archbishop, your own Bishop and your congregation one big apology for your misguided missive.  Heck, I think you even owe the Sulpicians an apology for being such a poor example of their formation.  Did you just stop to think for one second that it might have been wildly inappropriate?  At this point, you’ve given us a great glimpse of the products of Sulpicians of the past and why their decision to withdraw might have been great for us.  Maybe now we can look forward to priests who don’t undermine their bishops.  What a concept!

Here’s to many years of the formation of faithful priests and may Archbishop Cordileone find the perfect order to do the job!

If you’d like to express your feeling to Fr. Moran: gmoran@sichurch.com  

Not So Strange Bedfellows

This http://cal-catholic.com/?p=26175 is about as much surprise as Hillary being evil.  In other words, NO SHOCKER HERE!  Quite frankly, I’m reasonably sure that Fr. James Martin, SJ, likely has ties in there somewhere, too, because he’s mentioned in a whole lot of articles with Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, but can we just start off with this most obnoxious speaker, Dr. Arthur Fitzmaurice?

What we’re all wondering now is what the faithful bishops are going to do about it?  I mean, come on! John Podesta gave them a big ‘ol gift-wrapped package by stupidly putting in writing what many of us already knew.  Are you a bishop who’s wanted to get rid of this guy and his organizations for a while?  You now have the perfect reason to clear house and it’s a reason the average person in the pew can grasp.  Please don’t pass up this chance!  If we can’t get rid of a guy listed in the staff directory of an organization that John Podesta says is meant to overthrow the Church in America, we must be a bit suicidal as a church.

Now what will the response be on Fitzmaurice’s part?  “I didn’t know”?  Please.  He’s stated quite plainly his contempt for Church teachings.  Of course he wants to overthrow it.  Let’s just look at him again:

“http://cal-catholic.com/?p=24440 Fitzmaurice made news in March of this year at an annual conference for religious educators in Los Angeles when he denounced Church teaching on homosexuality as “abusive” and “gravely evil.” The gay ministry has a history of conflict with Church teaching. In 2012, the ministry’s board members defied their bishop, then Salvatore Cordileone, and refused to sign an oath which would bind them to “strive to clearly present Catholic doctrine on homosexuality in its fullness” and “profess personally to hold and believe, and practice all that the holy Catholic church teaches, believes and proclaims to be true, whether from the natural moral law or by way revelation from God through Scripture and tradition.””

Dear Arthur and his merry band of lesbian planners of the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress have their fingerprints all over the dissent at the “Congress”, as we locals call it.  Archbishop Gomez has given them a chance for reform, but he just need to overhaul it or shut it down.  How about some new administrators for the Congress?  All they do now is seek to undermine him yearly.  Honestly?  I think even they are a little shocked that he still lets them manipulate it.  Every year they seem to be trying to go out in a blaze of glory by notching up the dissent and outrageousness just a little more, yet they’re still there.  Last year’s list of undermining?  How about bringing in some transgendered young adults to extol the virtues of being Catholic and transgender? Or how about using the homosexual couple and their child as gift bearers in the offertory?  Cannot wait to see what’s in store for this year!  Maybe a marriage blessing for the lesbian organizer?  Why not? How else would they top the 2016 Congress? 

While it’s impossible to make them go away, at least the Oakland Diocese has disallowed Arthur Fitzmaurice’s other group, the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry, from operating with the blessings of the Church after Fitzmaurice and the CALGM club refused to sign an oath of fidelity to traditional Catholic teaching on homosexuality.  It was a no brainer.

Seriously, Archbishop Gomez, I’m sure this level of insanity has been hard to grasp, but grasp it you must.  It’s very real.  The Oakland Diocese used to be THE biggest exporter of heresy in the country, but after our succession of three great bishops, I’m reasonably sure that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and their Congress might hold the title now.  You need to make a few calls and organize a new board for the Congress.  We all know the key players who could successfully pull off the transition and install some true religious education.  Unfortunately, right now it appears 2017 is slated to be another dissent education bash. 

The Wolves are Cozy on the Couch

This has been an awful week for the Catholic Church, hands down.  Can’t say I didn’t see it coming, but the trifecta of bad cardinal appointments stings like hell (and I mean that literally).  I was hoping the devastation would be offset by a Cardinal Chaput appointment, but my hopes were dashed.  The liberals won this battle, pure and simple.  So what are we to do?  What is happening with the Pope?  Why is this happening?  Etc., etc., etc.  These are just some of the questions my poor readers are asking. Sorry this post is going to stray far from the sarcastic norm.

Those of you who read the blog regularly have probably noticed that I don’t criticize the Holy Father.  I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I have questions and thoughts in my head that I don’t convey.  Why don’t I relay them?  Because what good would it do? It would simply  give comfort to the enemy.  He certainly is the Pope.  Anyone who believes a less than stellar pope is not THE Pope doesn’t know history all that well.  We’ve had some pretty awful ones, and we’ve also had great ones who have made less-than-desirable moves.  I mean, who was it again that elevated Cardinal Mahoney?  If that wasn’t an epic mistake, I’m not sure what was. Yet that pope was the guy whose right hand man was Pope Benedict.  Heck, he’s canonized! Everyone has a bad day.  I hope that’s what’s going on here with Pope Francis. 

So, what is the girl who sits on her hands and avoids all attempts to criticize the Pope going to say?  Well, first of all, I feel your pain and I’ll try to be a voice for you.  Yes, these were bad appointments that are going to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Faith – namely Fr. James Martin, SJ, and his cohorts in crime.  There’s no way to spin it.  However, it’s one battle.  It ain’t the war, and we already know the outcome of that.  It’s just a matter of how bad things will be until we get to that outcome.

So what about Pope Francis?  I’m hardly Rocco Palmo, but my GUESS is that this is what you get when you have a cardinal from Argentina elevated to the papacy.  He was so far removed from the politics of Rome that he doesn’t know who the enemy really is. He has, frankly, Argentinian notions about the rest of the world, and I think he’s actually seen that some of these notions weren’t quite what he thought.  He was insulated there and he’s insulated now. He has no clue and simply trusts those that appear to be friendly really are.  Heck, I’ve seen that happen to great bishops right here in America.  It’s amazing how well the dissidents can gain confidence when they adjust those halos.  However, the faithful bishops and cardinals had better figure out a way to clue him in that he is being handled, or the Church that my kids have to live in is going to tank for the foreseeable future. 

One thing I notice here in the States is that we have this really weird view of collegiality.  Rarely do faithful bishops or cardinals take on a bishop who is undermining doctrine and morality. They’ll all get together on topics where they feel they can win in society, but not on the issues that affect all of us.  Or, at least, this is the view from the pew.  I mean, if the good guys really care about the laity, why don’t they something???  If my husband saw his brother abusing his family, he certainly wouldn’t sit there and say, “Not my problem!”  His brother’s family would also be his family, even if he isn’t the head of their household.  My husband would also lend a brother a hand if they were in crisis and needed back up when they were in the right.  Unfortunately, I don’t really remember the bishops around the United States rallying around Archbishop Cordileone when he rightly wanted to hold his teachers to Catholic standards.  A rally cry instead should have gone up from all the faithful bishops that he was quite right to try to protect the students of the Catholic schools.

Heck, from my point of view, it seems as if the bishops living 20 minutes from each other don’t even consult together.  SOMEBODY, please call for a national summit of faithful bishops, because the laity is dying here!  I mean DYING!  Where the laity is concerned, giving Cupich a red hat doesn’t just affect the people of his diocese.  It affects us all!  The liberal priests, bishops, and cardinals are what they are.  We need the more-than-a -few good men to help us out here.  Why is it the liberals can band together but you guys cannot? It’s almost like watching the Republican party flail around these days.  Meanwhile, over in National catholic Reporter land, they have no qualms about forming an army to put down one faithful priest, bishop, or cardinal at a time.  Then there’s the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good.  Anyone catch Wikileaks this week?  Yes, our conspiracy theories have been validated.

In all seriousness, I would like to see the guys who love their flocks, the Church, the lost, AND my children all get on a plane and knock on Pope Francis’ door and give him the real score.  There is strength in numbers, and this isn’t just a saying.  You can’t let Cardinal Burke do all the talking and be relegated to Malta for the unforeseeable future. When one of you does something necessary to preserve the Faith in one area, you should all be publicizing it in your own dioceses.  Back each other up! More importantly, unite for the sake of MY children. 

Sometimes I feel like we faithful are an afterthought to many of you. That might be unfair but I guarantee that’s how many of us feel. You need to stop worrying about your job, and I’m not saying that in the “That’s all you care about way!”  I know that you want to stay with your flock to affect the most positive of outcomes, but it’s not working. You are essentially being extorted because you’re trying to do it all by yourself.  Cupich and club are undermining you at every turn, and you guys are still plodding on and keeping your noses to the grindstones.  I get the intention, but I think you all need to start being as “sly as the serpent and as gentle as doves” in a little more proactive way.

Your eminences and excellencies, just stop for a moment and pretend you are a father with children (because you are). If another parent or your child’s teacher is telling your child that homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice or that sex outside of marriage was fine, or that it would be just fine for your child to get an abortion because “their circumstance” warranted it, what would you do???????  Would you simply say, “Well, what can I do?” or would you give them a stern talking to about influencing your child to commit spiritual suicide?  I know you don’t have biological children, but darn it, we are supposed to be your spiritual children, yet you are letting the wolves come in and gnaw on us.  You’re reaching out to the lambs already taken from the flock, and I wouldn’t want you to stop, but what about the rest of us? Think long and hard because that’s what’s happening to your flock.  Nobody wants to feel bad about their sin, so they will cling to anyone telling them that they are just peachy.  As a parent, I’m not going to let that happen.  We’re going to fight as a family to keep that from happening.

I get that the bishops are “leaving the ninety-nine to go after the one”, but in our present scenario, when you go after the one, a bunch more are lost.  We’re hemorrhaging the salvation of our young.  There’s no longer just one straying because the shepherds aren’t closing the gate when they go after the one and the wolves are getting in.  It’s a reality that those of us “real world” parents are experiencing.  We’re killing ourselves to make sure all the good you do isn’t undone, but we feel like we can’t get our spiritual fathers to support us because they’re busy with the other children.  You need to find balance like all parents.

Again, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go after those who are straying.  When kids stray in a family, mom and dad have to go after them relentlessly, but at the same time, they need to make sure that no more stray by presenting a mixed message.  The worst thing a parent can do is cave to emotional blackmail.  If I love my child, they are going to know it, but they are also going to know the truth and they will know that I have nothing but their immortal soul in mind.  You can be both firm and loving.  I’m not sure if this is a point lost on those with no biological children, but it needs to be understood.  Saying “No!” can often be the most loving thing you can say, and no, the wandering will not always like it.  So?  We just keep reaching out to them.

I once had a priest curtly ask me, “With all due respect, who are you?!” when I was expressing my concerns about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy exploiting them.  My answer?  “Who am I?  I’m a girl who’s concerned about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy expounding on them!”  Is that wrong??? Are we simply to keep smiling?  Can I not be concerned? Are we supposed to be in denial about how such things are being used?  I don’t claim to be anything special, but I’m betting I’m echoing the concerns of a good chunk of the laity.  I’m not going into schism and disobedience. I’m just terrified, and I want our fathers to know how terrified we are for our families. I’m not urging the bishops to go rogue.  I’m urging them to be strategic.  We really are in a war.

So, what is the laity to do?  Pray, fast, beg our bishops to fight for their children, and prepare for the next battle.  In other words, carry on.

USF: Traditional, Progressive or Door #3?

I’m sure all sorts of strange noises of shock and exasperation came out of my mouth as I was reading this:

https://sffoghorn.org/2016/04/21/traditional-progressive-both/

And then this came out before I could even get an article written:

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4847/USF-Basketball-Coach-Doesn%E2%80%99t-Want-Faithful-Catholics-on-the-Team.aspx

So, you’re going to get a two-fer.  Let’s take them one at a time.

It’s taken me awhile to process this boatload of fantastical theories.  It rather epitomizes why the vast majority of schools bearing the “Catholic” moniker are a danger to society.  I mean, people actually believe what is spewed here is Catholic!

Traditional, Progressive, Both?

How about neither?  I choose door number three.  Dissenting is probably what that door would be labeled.  No progress is being made.  In fact, we’re kind of stepping back to the decadence and debauchery of ancient Rome or Greece at the University of San Francisco.  Without a doubt, it’s anything but traditional unless you’re counting lunacy as some sort of tradition.

The tall, dark wooden doors of the St. Ignatius Church are open every day from dusk ’til dawn, yet a relatively small fraction of the USF’s students are seen among the pews. Metal crosses decorate the front walls of many classrooms in the Lone Mountain building, though only a handful can be seen in any of the newer classrooms down the hill. The prevalence of the school’s religious identity appears to have slowly but surely weakened on campus over the years.

The school’s religious identity has slowly but surely weakened?  I don’t think so.  Unless slow and sure means 100 miles per hour in a Midwestern thunderstorm.  That said, most of USF sees things through a myopic lens, so 50 years for them is FOREVER.  Wait until they find out how long eternal life and hell last.  What a wakeup call that’s going to be.  Unfortunately, I’m reasonably sure it’s not considered much there.

A majority of students are mainly attracted to USF because of its liberal and open-minded reputation. While the University is proud of its close connection to the progressive city of San Francisco, it also has a deep Jesuit Catholic identity. At times, it’s hard for some people, students especially, to reconcile these two aspects of USF.

Deep Jesuit identity?  Again, people need look at the history in total.  It’s not just one person’s lifetime.   Does anyone see the “Jesuit Catholic identity” of their founders in the vast majority of today’s Jesuits?  One would have to wonder if these kids actually know the names of Jesuit saints.  There are not two aspects of USF, just the one, liberal, open-minded one, progressive (or the stupid one, as those of us with some knowledge and sanity would say).

As she cautiously sipped her freshly brewed latte in the cafeteria in the University Center, Consuelo Reyes, a sophomore communications major, explained her initial attraction to USF. Reyes said, “[I could] see honesty, progressiveness, sincerity, and integrity rooted in the values that this school had when it came to education.”

How about Catholicism?  Anyone? Not important?  Didn’t think so.

At the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, USF President the Rev. Paul Fitzgerald, S.J. spoke at the annual faculty and staff meeting. During his talk, he proposed a conversation on the Jesuit university experience. In an email response to questions about his proposal, Fitzgerald wrote, “[I] asked deans and directors to have conversations with their team members about how well we are fulfilling the vision statement that we articulated back in 2008.” He explained that the first round of conversations would discuss USF’s Catholic and Jesuit tradition while the other “four essential features” of this tradition would be part of later conversations.

As director of USF’s University Ministry, Julia Dowd has been involved in these conversations at USF. She said that although Catholicism gets a bad rap in society these days, “It’s important to claim who we actually are because if we don’t, other people get to claim what ‘religious’ looks like.

Ummm… Honey, you don’t get to explain what Catholicism is.  You don’t get to define it.  You don’t get to shape or change it.  It is what it is, and anyone can look to Her teachings to see Her.  What does “religious” look like?  Who the heck cares when the school you attend doesn’t even teach the True Faith?

A year ago, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone sparked conflict with many local Catholics with his decision to require teachers at Catholic high schools to sign a morality clause that depicts sex outside of marriage and same sex relationships as “evil.”

Holy Moses!  Do your homework, dear student reporter!  THIS IS WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES!!!  This isn’t some new and exciting teaching Archbishop Cordileone invented.  HE WAS CITING THE TEACHING OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH!  Get it through your thick skulls, liberals.  If you don’t like it, fine.  Just admit that it is so and that you dissent from it.  Stop this whole “Isn’t the Archbishop a great big meanie?!” routine and admit that you HATE the teaching of the Faith you profess.  I mean, a little honesty would be nice.

In opposition to the archbishop’s edict, 100 prominent Roman Catholic donors and church members, including many Catholic educators, former Catholic Charities board members and executives, and the father of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady Jr., published a full-page open letter in the San Francisco Chronicle that asked Pope Francis to replace Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. The signers wrote, “Archbishop Cordileone has fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance.”

Or, as most of us can see, the Archbishop is teaching the exact same thing as Pope Francis.  You know what’s funny?  The non-Catholic flaming liberals point this out on a regular basis.  Sadly, they’re a little more honest than the Catholics. 

Among the signers of the letter was Charles Geschke, whose family name is on USF’s Geschke Center and who served USF’s Board of Trustees for about 18 years.

Via a phone conversation, Geschke who went to a Jesuit high school, a Jesuit university, and taught at a Jesuit college for about five years, said he signed the letter because, “As a lifelong Catholic and very involved in Catholic causes, I didn’t feel he [Cordileone] represented my viewpoints on what it means to be a Christian in a pluralistic world.”

Oh Mr. High and Mighty, heaven forbid the Archbishop doesn’t represent your viewpoints!  Because, you know, that’s oh so important.  The megalomania of these rich, liberal Catholics is staggering.  Pluralistic world?  Does the word “missionaries” mean anything to you?  Again, might be nice if you knew just a bit about the Jesuit missionaries after your Jesuit high school and college tenure.

The archbishop’s action has made it more difficult for some students to associate with Catholicism because of his exclusivity. When asked about the significance of Cordileone’s stance, Reyes said, “It’s important to recognize and respect each individual student’s decision to either engage religiously throughout their academic career or not.”

How about this?  It’s important for the students’ moral souls to teach them just what the Catholic Faith is.  What a thought!  Imagine a Catholic school trying to help people gain heaven!  Nobody is putting a gun to these students’ heads and making them accept Catholicism.  They can accept or reject it, but that doesn’t mean a Catholic school or a Catholic bishop shouldn’t do everything possible to teach authentic Catholicism.  The only threats being made here are to the Archbishop. 

In addition to the archbishop sending a bold and conservative message to the San Francisco Catholic community, last summer Fitzgerald faced a situation which seemed to represent the tension between Catholic principles and his own apparently more liberal views. Fitzgerald attended the San Francisco Pride Parade with others from USF in support of LGBTQ+ members. This happened the same week he removed a tweet an assistant in the university’s communications office sent out under USF’s Twitter account in support of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage the law of the land. When the tweet was criticized by conservative Catholic groups, Fitzgerald issued a statement that said the tweet did not reflect the views of USF. This caused some confusion and upset among USF students: if even their own president was having trouble expressing to his multi-layered identity, how were they supposed to have an easier time?

Oh, believe me, Fr. Fitzgerald doesn’t have any Catholic principles, so his liberal views aren’t in conflict with anything other than authentic Catholicism and he really doesn’t give a rip about that.  I’m quite sure the only reason for a tweet retraction is that someone with money wasn’t too happy.  Money is the only thing that could possibly stop Fr. Fitzgerald from erasing every last trace of Catholicism.  Might be the only reason crosses still exist on that campus.

“It’s clearly a sensitive and relevant topic, I mean for students for faculty for staff, everyone, for Father Fitzgerald. Right?” said Conor Smith, a USF resident minister. “So I think it’s a great question to be asking like where does the university stand on some of these issues and is the university’s stance necessarily reflective of the student body and the staff and faculty who work here.”

LOL!  It sounds like the liberals a starting to turn on each other.  I’m all for Conor Smith’s proposal.  Let’s hear the answer, Fr. Fitzgerald!  Well?  Come on, let’s just put the cards on the table.  I’m sure young Conor doesn’t understand the careful balance of donor money.  We probably should let Conor in on the fact that money really does make the liberals’ world go ‘round.

The identity formation dilemma for students at USF is nuanced and multifaceted. Attempting to address all parts of a student’s identity and not compromise their progressive ideals (for those who have them) is not an easy task for a Jesuit university to accomplish, though it is critical to acknowledge the multiple layers of students identities — which seems to be the goal of these conversations. The root of the tension for USF lies in balancing students’ identities with modern times, all while maintaining the core Jesuit and Catholic education principles.

Interviews with various members of USF’s community revealed a range of reactions to this tension. Reyes explained her battle with this tension and her concerns about coming across as hypocritical. Although she is currently not practicing Catholicism as she has in the past, she is worried that if she were to return to practicing, her progressive values would conflict with Catholic rules.

Let me just clear this up for you, Ms. Reyes.  Yes, your progressive values would be in conflict with Catholic truths (or doctrines, as those who actually practice the Faith call them.)  Full disclosure: you will also most likely find yourself in conflict with the Catechism, Canon Law, and a lot of disciplines.  Catholicism isn’t for wimps.  We are the Church of martyrs.  Conflict is our middle name, whether it be internal or societal.

Sophomore media studies major Jennifer Kang said she hasn’t experienced any sort of religious pressures at USF. “I never felt like an outsider as a non-religious person,” said Kang, who also observed, “USF is pretty conscious of change and current events and is willing to hold important conversations about it.”

A simple “Gag!” will suffice here.  That’s because USF is about as non-religious as you, Ms. Kang,  unless moral relativism is now considered a religion.

Connor Smith, who worked for a USF volunteer program in the Philippines after he graduated from Boston College, said, ”Working with Jesuits and working and going to school at Jesuit establishments — that is the educational model and framework that includes things that have become really important to me.

Smith took a moment to share his own complexities of having a Catholic identity and being a gay man, since he believes the church’s conservative approach to social issues will carry on. “You work for a university that can’t necessarily ‘come out’ so to speak and support gay issues or any other issues that the church is terrible at addressing,” said Smith. After a moment of reflection, Smith shrugged and sighed, saying, “To keep that identity as both progressive and a Catholic is hard.”

Connor Smith just spelled it out even if he doesn’t know it.  These two “identities” (they are really choices) are completely incompatible.  If they are claiming both, one of them is a lie.

Now let’s look at Coach Azzi’s comments.  Totally intimidating don’t you think?  First she says:

Azzi said of anyone who “has an issue” [with her same-sex attraction lifestyle]: “I don’t want to coach them anyway.”

And then she says:

They first told four players over lunch, and their response — and that of their teammates later — was ‘overwhelmingly supportive.’

Um, yeah.  Coach Azzi, let’s think about this.  Do they have a choice?!?! You just said you didn’t want to coach people who didn’t accept your lifestyle, and then you say that they were overwhelmingly supportive?   You’ve basically said “Get in line or you don’t play here!” No pressure on the players here. How so very “tolerant” you are!

Lastly, there’s this:

The Chronicle quoted one student saying, “Frankly, I don’t see how this can have a negative effect on our program. If someone loses interest in our program because they hear that two of our coaches are married to one another, they are clearly missing the point.”

Who’s missing the point?!?!  You know, the one about the University of San Francisco supposedly being a Catholic school.  Don’t feel bad, anonymous student.  Most people at USF, teacher or student, seem to miss that minor little point.  Grooooooaaaaaannnnnn!

Just one last bonus for you from Fr. Fitzgerald: 

http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4846/USF-President-A-Priest-Congratulates-Staff-on-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx

Coach Azzi has entered into a civil marriage according to the laws of the land,” Fr. Fitzgerald stated. “We will afford her every benefit and legal protection which she is due. The university is a Catholic Jesuit institution that is purposefully diverse and dedicated to inclusivity.

It’s so wonderful to see Fr. Fitzgerald follow in the tradition of so many of the Jesuits who were martyred rather than to ever follow “law of the land” that was contradictory to the Faith.  Oh, wait.  Maybe not so much.  Honestly, how do the Jesuits like Fr. Fitzgerald and his ilk live with themselves?  I mean, it’s just EMBARRASSING!  Certainly doesn’t sound like the heavy hitting Jesuits who built the order!  Anyone see these saints putting forth the drivel of Fr. Fitzgerald?

And touching our Society, be it known to you that we have made a league – all the Jesuits in the world – cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted; so it must be restored. ~Edmund Campion (Restored, USF, not destroyed! I think you’re mixing up some letters.)

To have prevented one single sin is reward enough for the labors and efforts of a whole lifetime. ~Saint Ignatius (It would seem like 97% of the modern Jesuits have gotten this one completely backwards.)

Many, many people hereabouts are not becoming Christians for one reason only: there is nobody to make them Christians. ~Francis Xavier (Who knew the Jesuit schools of America would resemble Francis Xavier’s missionary territory?!)

Freedom of belief is pernicious, it is nothing but the freedom to be wrong.  ~Robert Bellarmine  (Take that all you moral relativist!)

Better that only a few Catholics should be left, staunch and sincere in their religion, than that they should, remaining many, desire as it were, to be in collusion with the Church’s enemies and in conformity with the open foes of our faith.  ~Peter Canisius  (You modern Jesuit college types have fallen far away from the inventors of Jesuit education!)

So, please USF, how about you spare us all of the “Jesuit Catholic identity”delusions and admit you gave that up a while back?!

Choosing Rainbows Over Catholicism

We’re always very quick to send letters of dismay but I ask you to take the time to send a note of encouragement to Fr. Gordon Mann and Deacon Ed Wilkerson.  They made a decision with the love and care of their parishioners in mind and I’m reasonably sure they will continue to be rebuked for it.  It must be hard to be new to a parish, find something in error, and try to fix it.  You can find their email addresses here: http://stsmaryandjohnparish.org/about-the-parish/meet-our-staff/

http://www.courierpress.com/news/local/after-12-years-at-st-marys-downtown-rainbow-catholics-in-christ-in-search-of-new-home-2b71f080-98bf–372644461.html

After 12 years at St. Mary’s Downtown, Rainbow Catholics in Christ in search of new home

 By Megan Erbacher of the Courier and Press 

“It’s not “us against the church,” according to John Radez.”

Um, really?  What is it?  My guess is that you think it’s the Church against you.  Not one Church document says that.

But faced with what some members described as an “impossible choice,” the Rainbow Catholics in Christ (RCC) are searching for a new meeting place after calling St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Downtown Evansville home for the past 12 years.

Why is it that this is an impossible choice?  Is it because your group’s intent is not to encourage its members to live according to Church teachings?

RCC acting secretary Bill Muller wrote an email in February to RCC members notifying them they could no longer utilize the church.

“We are so sorry to inform you that after extensive discussion Father (Gordon) Mann and Deacon (Ed) Wilkerson determined that the Rainbow Catholics in Christ Ministry is no longer welcome to exist at Sts. Mary and John Parish. Father Mann said we are not operating in compliance with the Roman Catholic Church rules.”

That’s not quite how it went down, is it?  Fr. Mann pointed out that the RCC wasn’t following Church teachings and he encouraged them to adopt the model of Courage/Encourage and what happened?  They decided that following a group which ministers to them with authentic Catholicism was an “impossible choice.”

RCC members describe the group as an LGBTQ support group also open to friends and family members. They meet once a month for fellowship and informative presentations, and traditionally start and end the meetings in prayer.

This year’s agenda lists presentation topics including LGBTQ advocacy; fairness in employment and housing; and human sexuality and spirituality.

Well, they pray.  They must be adhering to Church teachings, right?  Every time I hear things like this I think: “Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

This doesn’t mean that this group is following authentic Church teaching in any manner.  Protestants do the same thing, right?

According to Radez, a member of the group, the RCC leadership team was told by the Rev. Gordon Mann, pastor of Sts. Mary and John Parish, that they would not be allowed to meet at the church unless the format of the group changed. A suggestion was made to change to the Courage/Encourage format.

Established in 1980 in New York City, Courage’s website describes it as Catholics who “experience same-sex attractions and who are committed to helping one another to live chaste lives marked by prayer, fellowship and mutual support.” Courage has five goals and 12 steps modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous and aims to help members “grow in self-understanding and holiness.”

Encourage was founded in 1992 for parents, family members and friends of the LGBTQ community.

So let me get this straight.  A group in conflict with the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church on morality and sexuality, and who doesn’t encourage it’s members to adhere to that teaching would not be allowed to meet in a Catholic Church facility.  Hmmm…sound darn genius to me!  You know what’s sad? It’s sad that this is news at all.

Mann declined to comment on the situation.

“You know, I’m not going to comment, at all,” he said.

Good for him!  He’s not going to bring further scandal to the fact that this was even allowed in the first place.

Catholic Diocese of Evansville spokesman Tim Lilley responded with a statement:

“The Church’s respect for the dignity of every person as created in the image of God has remained consistent throughout time. Outreach to people across society — including the LGBT community here in the Tri-State and across the world — continues to be founded in that respect for the sacredness of every person. All are welcome.”

The statement also referenced a December 2013 Indiana bishops pastoral statement on the church’s position on marriage being “the union of one man and one woman — a natural institution established by God.”

The statement concluded by noting the church will “continue to reach out to all, and to respect the dignity of all.”

Exactly.

Listed under new business in Feb. 22 pastoral meeting minutes, parish pastoral council member David Nelson addressed RCC’s departure which, according to those minutes, happened during a team meeting in mid-February.

“The team presented their program calendar for 2016, and after review and discussion, it was determined that speakers/topics proposed were contrary to the mission of the supportive role of the group, and instead the group had become political in nature,” the minutes stated. “Its politics could not be supported by a nonprofit entity, nor did they coincide with the teachings of the Catholic church.”

Not sure where the politics comes in but we can totally understand why Fr. Mann wouldn’t think that they didn’t coincide with Church teachings.  I’ll address this after dealing with this story.

Mann suggested RCC members research Courage/Encourage to learn more, but members disagreed and “the meeting abruptly ended.” Meeting minutes later noted that Mann, after discussing it with the diocese, declared that Courage/Encourage is “not the right program for Sts. Mary and John at this time.”

Sounds like the diocese probably wasn’t enjoying any light falling on this subject since this church had indeed been allowing the group to meet for 12 years.  Big mistake and now they have to deal with repercussions of that bad move.  Experience usually shows that it’s easier to revoke permission and let tempers cool before starting a whole new program that is going to be hassled off the bat.

However, Mann said the parish must ensure Catholics of any orientation feel welcome.

“The Catholic church supports people with same-sex attraction and does not consider them second-class citizens,” the meeting minutes read.

Never heard that before– except for on a regular basis.  By the way, I’m curious as to who released the minutes of the meeting.

RCC members said they have endured scrutiny since the Rev. Steven Lintzenich retired in early 2014 after serving as St. Mary’s pastor for about 30 years.

30 years?!  There’s a reason this usually isn’t done.  Poor Fr. Mann.  Sounds like he’s dealing with decades of improper catechesis.

For example, group members looking at the church website noticed the “T” standing for transgender had been removed from the group’s mission statement that had been posted on St. Mary’s Catholic Church’s website. The group never authorized such a move.

It’s a parish group.  Whatever happens is at the discretion of the pastor.  This silly notion that Church groups are served by the pastor needs to end.  It’s the polar opposite.

After the dismissal in early February, about 25 RCC members met at Evansville Central Library to discuss next steps. A majority agreed the group needs to continue.

The group had a regular meeting Thursday evening at St. Lucas United Church of Christ with Rev. Phil Hoy as guest speaker.

Rev. Lynn Martin, pastor of St. Lucas UCC, said it was a natural instinct to offer free space for the group’s meetings. Martin, who has been at the Protestant church for 11 years, said many groups outside of the church use their space.

“We feel the space needs to serve others,” he said, “especially to welcome groups that are oppressed or under represented.”

So, a group in conflict with Church teachings goes to a Protestant Church?  Hmmm…

Martin has known Wally Paynter, Tri-State Alliance president and current acting RCC leader, for many years and helped with Tri-State Alliance initiatives. In the past, Martin has been a guest speaker at RCC meetings.

Yeah, Google Tri-State Alliance.  It’s a who’s who of dissident Catholic groups and here’s something you are not going to believe!  Rainbow Catholics in Christ is listed there.

Late fall 2014, Martin said St. Lucas UCC declared they were open and affirming, meaning everyone of any sexual orientation is welcome and accepted. He said the church lives by Luke 6:35: “Give without expecting a return.”

Martin said the church wants to be a “safe haven” for the LGBTQ community.

“It’s our way of fulfilling the mission of Jesus, if he were here,” he said.

Moral relativism as usual.  A Church is supposed to lead people to the will of God.  Not the will of themselves.

Paynter, who has been involved with RCC since the beginning, said he is leading the group through the transition because the leadership team has shifted as a “direct result” of what’s happened at St. Mary’s. Paynter has presented at RCC meetings on topics such as working with LGBT youth, HIV issues and acceptance in the Tri-State and community. While the group doesn’t always agree on everything, Paynter said it’s a “good, eclectic group of people and probably more friends and family of LGBT individuals.”

If the format of the group changed, Paynter said he feels it would shift from support to “spiritual and psychological harm.”

There it is ladies and gentlemen.  The Church, according to Paynter, causes spiritual and psychological harm.  All this time I thought that was sin.

“I feel like people just really feel hurt, torn down,” he said. “Something that was so vital to who they were as Catholics and as individuals and to have that group treated in this way — I think people need time to heal.”

Who hurt you and tore you down?  The guy reiterating Church teaching and urging you to follow it?  Get a stinking clue.  The Church doesn’t revolve around you and your sins any more than the Church revolves around me and my sins.  Sin is sin.  You’re afraid to say that.

A new home could go a long way in doing just that, said Kelley Coures. As a Jew, Coures said he didn’t want to comment on someone else’s religion, but the City of Evansville’s Department of Metropolitan Development executive director said he always had “warm feelings” toward St. Mary’s.

Oh, well let’s just ditch reality and truth for the warm feelings.   That should serve everyone better.

Coures presented at RCC over the years on topics including LGBT history locally and in the U.S., and LGBT individuals in film. He hopes the group continues its work.

Yeah, that ought to bring people to salvation.  This makes me so angry.  Souls are in jeopardy but let’s teach everyone about their “culture.”  People, we are not defined by our sin.  I don’t want to be labeled anything other than faithful.  If we’re going that way we’re going to start having to label everyone by their sin.  Let’s have Glutinous Catholics, Slothful Catholics, Prideful Catholics– after all, these are our natures.  Face it.  We are all Catholics with sinful natures in need of God’s mercy.  We can fight against that sin or we can just throw our hands up in the air and talk about how we are so oppressed.  The only thing oppressing us is sin.

“My mother always said, ‘If somebody doesn’t want you, you move on and find somebody who wants you,’ ” he said. “The group has an option to go and find a place that wants them and will celebrate them. They have an opportunity to grow into something else, but I’d hate for them to lose their Catholic identity.”

And it’s really all about you and you wanting acceptance of your actions which are contrary to the faith.  Everyone and their pastors have said that you are to be treated with dignity as a child of God.  We totally accept your struggle but we do not accept your sin any more than I’d accept a sinful act from a child I love dearly.  It’s spiritual death for you and I don’t want that for you.  Neither does Fr. Mann.

With many mixed emotions, RCC members are considering a new, permanent meeting place. And contemplating a name change.

Radez isn’t mad. He’s disappointed and hurt.

Being raised Catholic, Radez was drawn to St. Mary’s about six years ago because of the parish’s well-known progressive and ecumenical reputation.

Well, you know what?  I’m glad your fellow co-parishioners got to feel so progressive and ecumenical while they rubberstamped the homosexual lifestyle. Hope they feel really good about themselves because that’s all that matters.  Sigh.

“My issue is not so much confrontational with the church or anything,” Radez said. “Mine is more disappointment. The church is missing an opportunity to minister to people who need it. By pushing people away from the table, marginalizing people, the church is missing a golden opportunity to minister. … Which is completely contradictory to what Christ would have done. He invited all of the sinners to the table.”

No, what the Church has done is to offer to minister to the people correctly and in a manner that gets you to heaven.  Yes, Christ dined with sinners.  ANYONE catch the part about “go and sin no more?”  ANYONE?  How about that part about millstones or how hard it is to get to heaven?  Nah.  Let’s just think happy thoughts.

So, I bet you’re probably wondering why the Fr. Mann felt they weren’t in line with Church teachings. As usual, I gave a little tug on the info blanket and it’s unraveling.  I now know more about this group than I care to and Fr. Mann was quite correct in trying to get them to embrace the Courage/Encourage model.  Rainbow Catholics in Christ embrace the “rainbow” mentality far more than the Catholic end.  As you will see, they are affiliated with members of New Ways Ministry.  We all know by now that New Ways does not have the blessings of the Church.  In case you don’t, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_ways_ministry_not_approved_by_catholic_church_cardinal_george_states/ 

Chicago, Ill., Feb 14, 2010 / 04:45 pm (CNA).- The New Ways Ministry for homosexual Catholics does not present an authentic view of Catholic teaching, Cardinal George has said. Rather, it confuses the faithful about the Church’s efforts to defend traditional marriage and to minister to homosexual persons.

Why do I say they are affiliated with New Ways?  In short, past events like this one https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-36264653/rainbow-catholics-in-christ-plans-weekend-retreat which brought in New Way’s darling Sr. Marian Durkin.  https://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/tag/sister-marian-durkin/

New Ways Ministry is not trying to teach the LGBTQXYZ crowd the authenticity and beauty of the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality and how to help people with same-sex attraction to embrace that.  They seek to undermine it.  They go with moral relativism. You know, a heresy.  Somehow I don’t think

Did you notice this part of their retreat announcement?

The meetings maintain a strict element of confidentiality but are open to everyone in the LGBT community, “not just members of St. Mary’s,” said Pam Thoren, who was among the founding members of the organization.  Do you find this description in other parish support groups?

According to their mission statement, “Rainbow Catholics seek to ease the pain of alienation and rejection and to promote reconciliation between the church and any individual oppressed because of sexual orientation.. to educate ourselves and our church community to the existence of unexamined prejudice as well as the consequences of injustice.. (to build) bridges of cooperation and understanding within and outside the church community.” 

The Church is not alienating them.  They may be alienating themselves from the Church by their moral actions but the Church welcomes all.  The Church most certainly is not oppressing anyone.  She is trying to save their souls.  This is what that little group Courage/Encourage is all about but, as you will see, they’re not interested in that.  

How about this description of the group?  http://www.examiner.com/article/evansville-catholics-support-gays

Every third Thursday of the month, a group of Evansville Catholics, called Rainbow Catholics in Christ (RCC), meets to support its gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. The group welcomes all members and supporters of the gay community who wish to stand together in Christ. RCC intends to educate the church community, as well as those outside the community, about the harm of discrimination and to embrace diversity. Participants of RCC are provided a safe place to openly discuss issues within the gay community and where the Bible actually stands regarding homosexuality. All individuals are asked to maintain confidentiality.

Most Catholic Churches teach that homosexual acts are violations of divine and natural law. Because of these teachings, many people are turned away from the Catholic Church feeling unwelcome and disconnected from the faith. RCC provides a place of worship for those seeking faith in a welcoming Catholic Church. The group provides guidance and assistance with a modern Catholic perspective for individuals, parents, families and friends struggling with issues regarding sexual orientation.

Um, I’m pretty sure the Bible actually stand exactly where the Church says it stands.  Believe me, people, the more you look the worse it gets.  What the heck is a “modern Catholic perspective”?  I kinda thought the perspective of the Church is what is found in her teachings on the subject.  Silly me.

Lastly, during my research, I ran across this letter to the editor.  It once again proves that this group has done nothing to bring its parishioners to Church teachings.

http://www.courierpress.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/rejection-of-rainbow-group-leaves-parishioner-without-a-church-2e3ee8f5-8e8b-0f1b-e053-0100007f2295-372349841.html

Rejection of Rainbow group leaves parishioner without a church

Kirstin Ethridge

Evansville

For years, St. Mary Catholic Church in Downtown Evansville has been known as a safe space for all people, including LGBT+ Catholics. This is no longer the case. The Rainbow Catholics in Christ group, which ministered to LGBT+ Catholics, was recently rejected by the church’s new pastor, Father Gordon Mann.

Father Mann claims that RCC’s teachings are not in compliance with the Catholic Church’s teachings. However, RCC ministered openly for twelve years with the knowledge and consent of multiple pastors. Furthermore, how can a group which teaches that God loves all people be against God’s teachings? As 1 John 4: 7-8 says, ” … everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.”

So the group must be OK because it was there for 12 years?  Yeah, because organizations that were really, really wrong have never been in existence for that long.  Also, honey, pleases see the “Lord, Lord” verse referenced above.

I was baptized and raised in the St. Mary community. Until this year, I had always found it to be a welcoming safe space. As soon as I was old enough, I participated in many ministries, from greeting people at the church doors to teaching First Communion classes, because I wished to contribute to this wonderful mission of God’s love. Due to the church’s change of heart, I have had to resign from my multiple ministry positions. As I said in my resignation letter, “I cannot in good conscience continue to teach at a parish which excludes. Even if I do not explicitly teach exclusion, by remaining a First Communion teacher, I would be complicit in such exclusion.

Short letter and already we’ve said “safe space” twice. So annoying.   Can I please remind you that Christ died on a cross?  People are dying all over the world for the faith and you think people feel threatened because people don’t accept homosexual acts?   Safe spaces aren’t the priority of the Catholic Church.  How many saints are there and how many of them were martyred?  Bringing souls to Christ through authentic teachings of Christ as put forth by the Church is the Church’s mission. By the way, I am soooooooooo thankful that you quit your position teaching children.  Maybe a few of them will be saved from the “safe space” mentality.

I am currently in search of a church which will be more reflective of God’s all-encompassing love. In the meantime, I encourage anyone who is grieving about this change, as I am, to reach out to groups such as the Tri-State Alliance; the TSA has information on the future of RCC and other LGBT+ ministries. All people are created in God’s image. All people deserve an inclusive worship space.

No, honey, all people deserve to be guided in the authentic, reality based teachings of the Church.  The teachings of the Church are aimed toward all and truly include everyone.  Nobody gets special “snowflake” status because they want to keep sinning.  Again, that’s called moral relativism.  Look it up.  Understand it and get a grip on reality before it’s too late.

 

Cardinal Wuerl Must Have Seen a “Call to Battle!”

This: http://cardinalsblog.adw.org/2015/12/at-the-service-of-the-truth-and-love-of-jesus-christ/  Please read while I’m putting my eyes back in my head, tongue back in my mouth, and getting my chin off the floor! What the heck?! Can we get more of THIS Cardinal Wuerl? Better yet, can he please write responses for the Pope on this issue?  Just a couple of months ago I was lamenting his ambiguous synod comments and now this?

 

First, any person who struggles in trying to live according to the revealed truth of Catholic teaching should know the Church recognizes his or her dignity as created by God and that the person need not face life’s challenges apart from the grace of the Lord and his Church, which seeks only the highest good for everyone.

The Church recognizes that we all need to grow in faith and in closeness to the Lord. Simply acting contrary to Church teaching on occasion would not preclude serving as a ministerial employee or volunteer. For us to acknowledge that we are sinners, as we do, is to admit that occasionally we too have at times not lived up to the truth. On those occasions, we are expected to acknowledge our failings and seek to amend our lives in Christ.

However, if one persists or effectively insists that they are right and the Church is wrong, in the face of such irreconcilable differences it is not discrimination or punishment to say that continued ministerial service is not possible. It is not a question of personal private activity, but the social consequences of conduct which undermines the Church’s ability to fulfill her mission. When there is the potential for scandal that might lead people astray regarding the Catholic faith, continued service becomes untenable. (Emphasis from here on out, all mine!)

<Snip for brevity – it’s all awesome though!>

“We all are at the service of the mission of Christ,” and particularly for those in ministerial positions, “no one can claim a right simultaneously to work for the Church and to work against her belief” (23). When a person involved in ministerial activity offers a counter-witness to Catholic teaching by words or public conduct, however earnest they may be, experience shows that it can lead people away from the truth and otherwise have an adverse effect on our mission. The Church not only must be free to then take corrective steps, it has an obligation in charity and truth to do so.

<snip>

And no official would ever continue to employ someone who in his off-hours publicly demonstrated that he was opposed to the official’s policies or campaigned for the official’s opponent.

That last line harkens back to Archbishop Cordileone’s comment during his handbook fight. It’s a big “Duh!” the liberals just don’t seem to get or it’s the double standard they want us to simply take with our mouths shut.

The Church we serve is not ours, but Christ’s. The greatest mercy of the Church is to be faithful witnesses of his truth and love. It is precisely through the witness of authentic Catholic teaching, which is the revealed truth of the Gospel, that the parishioners in the pews, the young people in our schools, the people served in our charitable ministries, and the world at large will find salvation.

This is kind of the perfect response I wish the Holy Father had given, rather than the “Who am I to judge?” response.  I think every cardinal and bishop should bookmark this one. No need to re-invent the wheel. Clear. Concise. No backpedaling and, most importantly, NO APOLOGIES for doing what the Church is supposed to do! Did I think I’d be giving kudos to Cardinal Wuerl twice in a year’s time? I’m not sure I thought I’d even do it once.  Here’s hoping 2016 sees that trend continue and here’s hoping our cardinals and bishops continue to focus on strengthening the mission of the Church in this new year!