Bishop Niederauer to be San Francisco Archbishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter UtahMaggie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Holy Father is not in a vacuum. Face it, he made this assignment on purpose.

I am consistently surprised by those who thought that Pope Benedict would be some Bavarian Avenger.

John
 
Just out of curiosity:

Does anyone know how consecrators and co-consecrators get picked? Is it based on what region a bishop is ordained in or in this case is it because all these bishops went to the same seminary (St. John’s in Camarillo)? And I have heard that Mahoney, Brown and Levada are pretty good friends is Neiderauer a good friend of theirs too?

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bnied.html

Archbishop George Hugh Niederauer

Archbishop of San Francisco

Events

DateAgeEventTitle14 Jun 193669.5169.5 BornLos Angeles30 Apr 196225.9Ordained PriestPriest of Los Angeles, California, USA3 Nov 199458.4AppointedBishop of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA25 Jan 199558.6Ordained BishopBishop of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA15 Dec 200569.5AppointedArchbishop of San Francisco, California, USA15 Feb 200669.7InstalledArchbishop of San Francisco, California, USA

Please contact the Archbishop through the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
 
John Higgins said:
“The fellow” has been selected by the Holy Father and Archbishop Levada to head the Church in San Francisco. He’ll be fine. I’m sure he’s the right prelate for the right time. The Pope didn’t just go through the deck of bishop cards and pick one!

Goodness!

John
Click to expand...

John,
How soon we forget. The late John Paul “The Great?” picked a host of terrible bishops. Let’s hope our new Holy Father has better insight!
 
Last year Bishop Niederauer wrote a book called “Precious as Silver, Imagining your life with God”. I just bought a copy but haven’t had time to start reading it. You may want to buy a copy and see if it answers any of your questions about him. But I hope all will give him a chance.

Merry Christmas,
Maggie
 
40.png
Jennifer123:
To me, the problem is he’s now the head of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, a place in desperate need for correct teaching and pastoral care of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Not so certain on this, read on sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/16/MNGAKG93S21.DTL&type=printable
 
oat soda:
this guy also opposed a ban on same sex unions. i thought the vatican issued a letter specifically addressing this issue and clearly stated that under no circumstance may we as catholics support any type of offical gay unions. but it seems that levada and this guy somehow support them.

it is like the vatican says one thing, and the bishops appointed by the vatican say another? i’m confused and don’t know what is right from wrong with these conflicting messeges sent by the church.
Click to expand...
Actually, Bishop Niederauer opposed a Utah constitutional amendment stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said there was no need because homosexual marriage was already illegal.
 
Time will tell.

Yes, it will be stressfull, but a different kind of stress, one he may be better equipped to handle.
 
40.png
UtahMaggie:
Actually, Bishop Niederauer opposed a Utah constitutional amendment stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said there was no need because homosexual marriage was already illegal.
Click to expand...
How convenient. Another lukewarm prelate :rolleyes:

You know all this talk about him being nice and sweet and all reminds me of something an episcopal priest I knew said about Bishop John Spong (of the Episcopal Church):

I know Jack! I went to seminary with Jack! People say he’s a heretic but, you should see how good he is with the children!"
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
How convenient. Another lukewarm prelate :rolleyes:

You know all this talk about him being nice and sweet and all reminds me of something an episcopal priest I knew said about Bishop John Spong (of the Episcopal Church):

I know Jack! I went to seminary with Jack! People say he’s a heretic but, you should see how good he is with the children!"
Click to expand...
Um, I don’t understand either comment. And I looked through the posts in this thread and don’t see anyone calling him “nice” and “sweet”.

And I don’t understand the lukewarm comment either. Care to elaborate?
 
40.png
Catholic29:
Not so certain on this, read on sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/16/MNGAKG93S21.DTL&type=printable
Click to expand...
From the reference above:
“he was troubled that the amendment banned any union beside marriage.”
You have to question what other sorts of unions (apart from marriage) that he would want approved. Doesn’t the Church oppose same sex unions as a detriment to the family? What else is there that was under consideration in Utah? (Poligamy is long gone, right?)
 
40.png
UtahMaggie:
Um, I don’t understand either comment. And I looked through the posts in this thread and don’t see anyone calling him “nice” and “sweet”.

And I don’t understand the lukewarm comment either. Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
You mentioned that he was a very holy and wonderful Bishop. Given his lack of zeal for orthodoxy and, what seems to be, his tacit approval of homosexuality, I can only interpret that to mean he is a good preacher, says wonderful things, etc. Many of the things that people say about Robert Schuller, Norman Vincent Peale, and other reverend wonderful’s who say wonderful and marvelous things about love and the like; but who have no backbone and do not stand up for orthodoxy.
 
40.png
Confiteor:
From the reference above:
“he was troubled that the amendment banned any union beside marriage.”
You have to question what other sorts of unions (apart from marriage) that he would want approved. Doesn’t the Church oppose same sex unions as a detriment to the family? What else is there that was under consideration in Utah? (Poligamy is long gone, right?)
Click to expand...
I’m trying to remember how to proposed amendment was worded. I do remember that my husband and I were both troubled with the wording but I don’t remember why. Anyway, gay marriage will NEVER be legal here in Utah. So, IMO, Bishop N didn’t see a need for the amendment. I’ll try to find out how the amendment was worded. (As for polygamy being long gone, maybe in law but the Utah ACLU says banning polygamy is unconstitutional and our attorney general will not prosecute known polygamists. Okay, that’s off the subject.)
 
This is the amendment which became Article I, Section 29:
Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
Click to expand...
John
 
It does appear that he will find San Francisco more congenial than Utah.
 
John Higgins:
This is the amendment which became Article I, Section 29:

John
Click to expand...
So, why did the Bishop have a problem with this? Why was he concerned that it was too restrictive? Is there a man/goat association in Utah that has a powerful lobby?
 
John Higgins:
I’m happy for him and for San Francisco.

John
Click to expand...
Oh I’m sure he will fit in there just fine. I’m so glad I live in the southeast. Still, it confuses me why the Vatican would promote someone who is on record as being a waffler in his support for traditional marriage.
 
it seems to me that the bishop supports gay civil unions of some type. even though the vatican is clearly against such a thing. it seems the vatican hasn’t learned its lesson. they choose “pastoral” bishops over orthodox bishops for many big cities here in the u.s. i hope B16 knows something we don’t because he doesn’t seem to be the best choice.
Niederauer also helped form the “Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders,” a group of Utah clergy who urged tolerance for gays and lesbians after the state legislature in 1996 banned gay student clubs when students at one school expressed interest in starting such a club.
Click to expand...
tolerance for gays and lesbians = relativity.
 
oat soda:
it seems to me that the bishop supports gay civil unions of some type. even though the vatican is clearly against such a thing. it seems the vatican hasn’t learned its lesson. they choose “pastoral” bishops over orthodox bishops for many big cities here in the u.s. i hope B16 knows something we don’t because he doesn’t seem to be the best choice. tolerance for gays and lesbians = relativity.
Click to expand...
I still think that perhaps the Vatican considers San Francisco a lost cause, so perhaps they are just shipping out the lost cause bishops to the lost cause dioceses. But, who knows?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top