Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[Anna_Elizabeth]

frommi:

I don’t agree with the way fth made any of the statements he/she made.

I certainly think the way the church has decided to blame feminism for some of the problems facing families today is abhorent on many levels.

Dear frommi,

Well, OK. If you don’t like fth’s question format, let’s see if I can come up with some things that demand concrete answers. I’ll start with a subject about which I have a lifetime of experience, theoretical and experiential:

1. Which are “some of the problems,” facing families that the Church has blamed on feminism?
2. Would you please list the “levels” on which that activity has been/is “abhorrent.”

Please do not think that I am attempting to take advantage of your youth. I really want to know these things, and, since teaching traits are embedded permanently in my bones, this is the path I must follow!

God bless,

Anna

 

[msproule]

frommi:

Again, in all cases the title “Vicar of Christ” applies to a Bishop…all Bishops…not just the Bishop of Rome.

I am sorry. I did not realize you were authoring the next publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. To contravene your revisionist efforts, allow me to provide some clear references:

[894](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/894.htm’) "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ…
[1560](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1560.htm’) As Christ’s vicar, each bishop…

but

[882](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/882.htm’) The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

also

newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Clearly, Bishops in general might be referred to as Vicars of Christ (with a capital “V”), but only if a sentence referring to them begins with that title. Otherise, they are vicars (lower-case “v”). One Bishop alone is Vicar of Christ (capital “V”). Gary Konczal’s posts sums it up nicely. Those are not his personal views. Those are the teachings of the Church.

Which of Bishop Untener’s documents supports your argument?

 

[singerlady]

Corinthians:

Just want to say–much of what has been written about the Saginaw Diocese and Bishop Ken on these boards has been exaggerated and taken out of proportion.

Could you cite some examples, please? I have not seen anything that was either exaggerated or “taken out of proportion.”

As for the current bishop, so far, people in the Saginaw Diocese have not really been able to get to know Bishop Robert.

Well, since he’s only been here about a month, you can hardly fault him for that.

 

[frommi]

msproule:

Which of Bishop Untener’s documents supports your argument?

I don’t believe any individual bishop authored such a document.

You are still quibbling with me here…that title has historically applied to ALL bishops. I’m sorry I can’t provide a link for you, but the Pope himself has referred to each individual bishop as a Vicar of Christ.

I’m gonna try to answer a few other questions here:

To Anna Elizabeth…

In a document about feminism that was published last August(?), it was made clear, according to Rome, that the intentional blurring of anthropological roles of men and women, generally by women, can be blamed for lower birth rates, less focus on the family, and the increasing willingness of some to view homosexual relationships as equal in stature to heterosexual relationships. It was, in my opinion, a horrendous document that was not pastoral at all in nature.

Frankly, even taking women’s ordination out of the equation, I am just not all the plussed by the way the Roman Curia deals with women and the issues around them.

To Singerlady

There have definitely been a few things at least taken “out of context” about the former bishop. For starters, people always say he was an advocate of women’s ordination, and I defy anyone to show where he said he wanted to ordain a woman a priest…and no one can show me that.

From there, this forum has often obscured any good that the man did behind a veil of “he didn’t make people kneel at communion”.

And I’m still not convinced people don’t resent the fact he didn’t have a mansion.

 

[fromtheheart]

I didn’t know that they usually call a bishop’s house a mansion. I thought that was for governors.

Here in Sioux Falls, we just called it the Bishop’s House or the Bishop’s Home.

It was truly a beautiful home. But not the largest or the most opulent in the historical district of our town. It was right across the street from the Cathedral and hundreds of people have been invited to visit.

As the host at a gathering of Respect Life Parish representatives on Life Chain Sunday, we found the brunch to be wonderful but most importantly Bishop Carlson went out of his way to make each of us little peons feel welcome and as though what we do is very very important.

This last Life Chain Sunday the brunch was held in the lower level of the Cathedral because the Bishop found out that some representatives in the far away deaneries were not coming because of their children. In 2004, the entire families were invited and it was still totally awesome.

A friend of mine helps the Bishop’s cook when dinners are held - helps with the serving and has relayed how wonderful his dinner parties are. My friend is in her 60’s and just “loves” the young Fathers she meets at the Bishop’s. But her most memorable meetings have been with Cardinal Arinze when he was here in 1999 and spoke at our Journey to Holiness and then 3 or 4 years ago when she served the Patriarch of Jersulem. It was a little foreign for my friend as she has never been Catholic and they taught her a couple of words of greeting and how to kiss his ring.
(I think it was the Patriarch of Jersulem - I don’t know what other Patriarch would have been here.)

fromtheheart

 

[singerlady]

frommi:

To Singerlady

There have definitely been a few things at least taken “out of context” about the former bishop. For starters, people always say he was an advocate of women’s ordination, and I defy anyone to show where he said he wanted to ordain a woman a priest…and no one can show me that…

If you were to hear a bishop give a homily in which he says that he took a women’s sensitivity seminar and learned that denying ordination to women hurt not only those women that wanted to be priests, but actually hurt every woman, what would you conclude from that? I heard the homily.

 

[fromtheheart]

fromtheheart:

IAs the host at a gathering…

A friend of mine helps the Bishop’s cook when dinners are held - helps with the serving and has relayed how wonderful his dinner parties are…

A litle clarification…
Let me say it was the Bishop that was the host (not the representatives)

And talking about dinner parties should have all been in the past tense. I guess I just want to think of him as still here.

fromtheheart

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

frommi:

To Anna Elizabeth…

In a document about feminism that was published last August(?), it was made clear, according to Rome, that the intentional blurring of anthropological roles of men and women, generally by women, can be blamed for lower birth rates, less focus on the family, and the increasing willingness of some to view homosexual relationships as equal in stature to heterosexual relationships. It was, in my opinion, a horrendous document that was not pastoral at all in nature.

OK, Let’s see how this answers my 2 questions:

1. What problems facing contemporary families did feminism engender?

blurring of anthropological gender roles

lower birth rates

less focus on the family

an increasing willingness to view homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equal in stature

Thank you. These are pretty specific, and that is what I requested.

1. In what ways were Rome’s actions “abhorrent?”

Since you haven’t named the document, nor explained in what way it was abhorrent, I guess I’m stuck here. You do repeat that it was “horrendous,” but this is, of course, another expression of your subjective evaluation, something that I am very pleased to have, but not what I requested, I’m afraid.

Suffice it to say, I live in a part of the USA in which feminism takes great pride in having accomplished just what you have listed above. I have spent years of my life with women who have doggedly yearned, quested and labored for just those results, so I am surprised that you should treat recognition of their success in some way as derogatory!

I move on:

In your description of the Church you would like to see you have suggested that we should (I believe I am quoting correctly), “go deeper in certain issues,” and “push ourselves to see if there is something out there.” You specifically mention sexual orientation as one of the areas needing further (“deeper”) study.

Could you please explain as clearly as possible what you mean by that? For example: are you homosexual?

Thanking you for the effort you put into this, I am appreciatively,

Your friend in Christ,

Anna

 

[msproule]

frommi:

You are still quibbling with me here…that title has historically applied to ALL bishops. I’m sorry I can’t provide a link for you, but the Pope himself has referred to each individual bishop as a Vicar of Christ.

Untrue…and I am not quibbling. To say so suggests that I am evading the point of the argument. Rather, I am actually providing minor support for the much larger argument. That is, demonstrating the magisterial supremacy of the Holy Father among Bishops.

Because I have nothing better to do, I spent the last 30 minutes (during commercial breaks) searching through all 26 of Pope John Paul II’s documents published on the Vatican website that employ the words “vicar”, “Vicar”, or “Vicar of Christ”. Not once does he use the official title “Vicar of Christ” to refer to anybody but Peter’s Successor. Not once. So please, let us move on.

You do not want others to make proofless claims (i.e. the late Bishop’s advocacy of women’s ordination). Please practice what you preach.

 

[frommi]

Anna Elizabeth:

OK, Let’s see how this answers my 2 questions:

1. What problems facing contemporary families did feminism engender?

• blurring of anthropological gender roles
• lower birth rates
• less focus on the family
• an increasing willingness to view homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equal in stature

Thank you. These are pretty specific, and that is what I requested.

1. In what ways were Rome’s actions “abhorrent?”

Since you haven’t named the document, nor explained in what way it was abhorrent, I guess I’m stuck here. You do repeat that it was “horrendous,” but this is, of course, another expression of your subjective evaluation, something that I am very pleased to have, but not what I requested, I’m afraid.

Suffice it to say, I live in a part of the USA in which feminism takes great pride in having accomplished just what you have listed above. I have spent years of my life with women who have doggedly yearned, quested and labored for just those results, so I am surprised that you should treat recognition of their success in some way as derogatory!

I move on:

In your description of the Church you would like to see you have suggested that we should (I believe I am quoting correctly), “go deeper in certain issues,” and “push ourselves to see if there is something out there.” You specifically mention sexual orientation as one of the areas needing further (“deeper”) study.

Could you please explain as clearly as possible what you mean by that? For example: are you homosexual?

Thanking you for the effort you put into this, I am appreciatively,

Your friend in Christ,

Anna

The document is here…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

Admittedly, it’s probably more of a mixed bag…calling it all bad is an unfair thing of me to do.

As far as the issue of homosexuality goes…my orientation isnt really the issue…i personally have a tough time with words like “intrinsically disordered” being bandied about in documents. Now, I’m not suggesting just because I have a problem with it that the church should adjust teaching. I do think though that the way those teachings are presented can be very harmful. We have to do something about that.

 

[Corinthians]

fromtheheart:

Here in Sioux Falls, we just called it the Bishop’s House or the Bishop’s Home.

It was truly a beautiful home. But not the largest or the most opulent in the historical district of our town. It was right across the street from the Cathedral and hundreds of people have been invited to visit.

As the host at a gathering of Respect Life Parish representatives on Life Chain Sunday, we found the brunch to be wonderful but most importantly Bishop Carlson went out of his way to make each of us little peons feel welcome and as though what we do is very very important.

That’s fascinating that Bishop Carlson went out of his way to make the people of Sioux City feel welcome. When the Diocese bought a new mansion for him in Saginaw, the Bishop asked the Saginaw News not to print his address, stating that he wanted privacy.

(Doesn’t matter though—it can easily be located on the Saginaw Township Assessors website.)

Also, unlike Bishop Ken, who held his installation in the civic center so that everyone could attend…Bishop Carlson’s was limited to only 2 or 3 representatives from each parish.

First impressions are lasting ones and so far, everyone that I’ve spoken to in the diocese finds Bishop Carlson less open and less friendly than Bishop Ken. Perhaps it’s too early to form such opinions–as someone else pointed out, he is new to the diocese and is still learning his way.

Many also question the wisdom of buying such a grand home for the new bishop. At a time when families in the diocese are struggling due to layoffs and a sluggish economy, it sends quite a message when the diocese thinks nothing of buying a 3,806 square foot house for $330,000.

As far as things about Bishop Ken being blown out of proportion, I have read so many posts from people outraged at Untener for ridiculous nitpicky things like the lack of kneelers or statues of the risen Christ rather than statues of the crucified Christ…or about their being not enough statues for someone’s liking…I think the important thing is that we learn the love of Christ and concentrate on that----rather than dwelling on the external less important things like whether a church has enough statues or kneelers.

 

[singerlady]

Corinthians:

As far as things about Bishop Ken being blown out of proportion, I have read so many posts from people outraged at Untener for ridiculous nitpicky things like the lack of kneelers or statues of the risen Christ rather than statues of the crucified Christ…or about their being not enough statues for someone’s liking…I think the important thing is that we learn the love of Christ and concentrate on that----rather than dwelling on the external less important things like whether a church has enough statues or kneelers.

I haven’t seen any “outrage” on this thread. I’m just questioning why we have 2000 bishops vote on things and then one bishop does what he wants to. The General Instructions were formulated for a reason, otherwise they would be called General Suggestions. My biggest concerns are not the lack of kneelers or statues. My biggest concern is the behavior of many of our priests. I don’t care how “progressive” someone is, gutter language is just plain bad manners for priest or laity. My concern is that young people consider a pastor “cool” because behaves like they do. My concern is that lay people are taking it upon themselves to insert rites into the mass that don’t belong there. My concern is lay people, who in baking the bread, adjust the recipe to suit their taste adding honey and baking powder. My concern is that there is less reverence for the Eucharist than when I was growing up. I see people brushing their palms on the way back from Communion. My concern is priests who preach that Eucharist could just as well be Coke and pizza - it was just the common food of the people. My concern is the disconnect between the Last Supper and what we do at Mass.

I am getting sick and tired of those of us who disagree with the FromMi’s and the Corinthian’s of the church being accused of nitpicking. I am getting sick and tired of being told that I don’t know how to read the documents. I am getting sick and tired of being told to be tolerant of people who have no tolerance for anyone else. I am getting sick and tired of being accused of being Sola Scriptura just because I quote a scripture passage. I am getting sick and tired of having lyrics of songs changed to fit an agenda. I am getting sick and tired of being told to be careful of what I say because my “conservatism” is showing.

As I said before, the glass chalices, the kneelers, etc, those are the easiest to fix, but are not my biggest concern. However, it is in the churches where the presidential chairs are out of the sanctuary, where honey and baking powder are added to bread to make it “work”, where there are no kneelers, where GIRM is a flexible document that I am hearing that I need to relax my conservatism. Many of us are fed up and have had to suck it up far too long. No more!

 

[ekindermann]

singerlady:

I am getting sick and tired of those of us who disagree with the FromMi’s and the Corinthian’s of the church being accused of nitpicking. I am getting sick and tired of being told that I don’t know how to read the documents. I am getting sick and tired of being told to be tolerant of people who have no tolerance for anyone else. I am getting sick and tired of being accused of being Sola Scriptura just because I quote a scripture passage. I am getting sick and tired of having lyrics of songs changed to fit an agenda. I am getting sick and tired of being told to be careful of what I say because my “conservatism” is showing.

As I said before, the glass chalices, the kneelers, etc, those are the easiest to fix, but are not my biggest concern. However, it is in the churches where the presidential chairs are out of the sanctuary, where honey and baking powder are added to bread to make it “work”, where there are no kneelers, where GIRM is a flexible document that I am hearing that I need to relax my conservatism. Many of us are fed up and have had to suck it up far too long. No more!

Yeah:yup: What she said. AND I’m sick & tired of being sick and tired.:crying:

 

[Lurch104]

Corinthians:

Also, unlike Bishop Ken, who held his installation in the civic center so that everyone could attend…Bishop Carlson’s was limited to only 2 or 3 representatives from each parish.

How about that, having mass at the cathedral instead of a sports arena. Imagine the gall of that guy.

Corinthians:

Many also question the wisdom of buying such a grand home for the new bishop. At a time when families in the diocese are struggling due to layoffs and a sluggish economy, it sends quite a message when the diocese thinks nothing of buying a 3,806 square foot house for $330,000.

Almost 4,000 square feet for 330,000 in a metropolitan area?!? Sounds like a bargain to me. You would have a hard time getting a home that size for that price in the backwaters of PA where I am from. I think he does indeed need the space as he is expected to entertain at his home. Why is the Vatican so oppulent?

Corinthians:

As far as things about Bishop Ken being blown out of proportion, I have read so many posts from people outraged at Untener for ridiculous nitpicky things like the lack of kneelers or statues of the risen Christ rather than statues of the crucified Christ…or about their being not enough statues for someone’s liking…I think the important thing is that we learn the love of Christ and concentrate on that----rather than dwelling on the external less important things like whether a church has enough statues or kneelers.

How about enough kneelers for every member of the congregation? Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

frommi:

As far as the issue of homosexuality goes…my orientation isnt really the issue…i personally have a tough time with words like “intrinsically disordered” being bandied about in documents. Now, I’m not suggesting just because I have a problem with it that the church should adjust teaching. I do think though that the way those teachings are presented can be very harmful. We have to do something about that.

Dear frommi,

Could you please be a little bit more specific?

How are the words “intrinsically disordered” 'bandied about?"

Would you please give some examples of how the presentation of that teaching is harmful?

What would you have the Church do to remedy this, that is, to keep it from being “harmful?”

Thanks for interesting correspondence and for the chance to make “lists!” I’ve never before done that!

In Christ,

Anna

 

[bknebel]

Singerlady,

Are you a full-time musician or do you have another occupation? I know of a certain diocese in the great plains region of the midwest that could use someone like you! And no, i’m not talking Sioux Falls (of course the best) but our neighbors to the North, the 2nd best … The Diocese of Fargo! They are looking for orthodox professional musicians at the Cathedral there and boy its quite the cathedral!

PM me and we’ll discuss this more!

 

[frommi]

Anna Elizabeth:

Dear frommi,

Could you please be a little bit more specific?
How are the words “intrinsically disordered” 'bandied about?"

• Would you please give some examples of how the presentation of that teaching is harmful?
• What would you have the Church do to remedy this, that is, to keep it from being “harmful?”

Thanks for interesting correspondence and for the chance to make “lists!” I’ve never before done that!

In Christ,

Anna

“intrinsically disordered” is a phrase lifted directly from several vatican produced documents about sexual orientation. And while I think it gets misintrepreted often by activists, it still feels like something that could perhaps be stated in a more pastoral way.

The risk of harm comes from the possibility of making people of different sexual orientations feel exiled from the church. That doesn’t seem fair to me, but I think this presentation can make a church that should be welcomign to all, feel decidedly unwelcoming.

In my perfect world, I’m not going to lie, I think the gifts and relationships brought by all would be recognized by the church. I do however, accept current teaching on the matter. I don’t know that will happen ever. I just think the church needs to take a posture of listening to these concerns and responding to them in a caring manner, even if the answer is no.

 

[singerlady]

“intrinsically disordered” is a phrase lifted directly from several vatican produced documents about sexual orientation. And while I think it gets misintrepreted often by activists, it still feels like something that could perhaps be stated in a more pastoral way.

The risk of harm comes from the possibility of making people of different sexual orientations feel exiled from the church. That doesn’t seem fair to me, but I think this presentation can make a church that should be welcomign to all, feel decidedly unwelcoming.

In my perfect world, I’m not going to lie, I think the gifts and relationships brought by all would be recognized by the church. I do however, accept current teaching on the matter. I don’t know that will happen ever. I just think the church needs to take a posture of listening to these concerns and responding to them in a caring manner, even if the answer is no.

Certain behaviors are a sin, FromMi, the homosexual lifestyle being one of them. Notice that I say lifestyle, not orientation. I’m not convinced that we have control over what attracts us, but we certainly have control over our behavior. “Intrinsically disordered” is a descriptive term.

And when the answer is no, when is that “no” considered the final answer?

 

[ekindermann]

bknebel:

Singerlady,
… The Diocese of Fargo! They are looking for orthodox professional musicians at the Cathedral there and boy its quite the cathedral! PM me and we’ll discuss this more!

Hey, hey, hey, you can’t have my brand new friend, who I haven’t even met yet! We need to KEEP all the folks we can like her here!

 

[frommi]

singerlady:

And when the answer is no, when is that “no” considered the final answer?

I don’t think everything needs to change until it pleases everybody, frankly, someone will ALWAYS be voicing their displeasure…

My feeling, quite often, is that we don’t allow our beliefs to evolve along with our own human evolution…we’ve learned a lot about how the world works in 2000 years, and I often feel that we refuse to incorporate that into how it might affect our disciplines.

The reality is that even with “no” being the answer on many things, many people ignore those "no"s…why is that? Can we honestly believe that the 50% plus of catholics who use contraception are all ‘bad’ catholics…don’t believe in the real presence, etc. That seems like a stretch, but clearly there is an issue here that some feel there voice is not heard on…for whatever reason.

I use the contraception issue as an illustrative point…not to open a debate on it.

It can be confusing to be a Catholic when even the things we say “no” to…like war and capital punishment, appear to have wiggle room…and other “nos” are so absolute.

I think its problematic for anyone of any sexual orientation to sleep around with everyone they meet…but I’m yet to get to a point, through prayer or education…where I can understand the problem with any loving committed relationship (this is just one example).

That’s just the way I see it.