Bishop Robert Carlson - Sioux Falls

[frommi]

msproule:

Since so many of us were not catechized properly (and I can promise you…I was not), please tell us what we are missing.

What you seem to continually infer about the Episcopacy smacks of Relativism, IMO. That is, within any particular frame of reference (in this case, the Diocese) whatever the Bishop says must be correct. This holds true regardless of whether or not he is at odds with the Whole Church. (Please tell me I misunderstand you on this!)

The Bishop has an obligation to maintain unity with the universal church. Which is why we don’t have bishops ordaining married men or women because they think its ok to do so, because that would break unity.

However, the Roman Curia was not designed to substitute its pastoral judgment for the judgment of local bishops. It has not been our tradition. It is not up to a Roman curial official to decide that we should not have communion under both kinds because it cant be done reverently (this is an example). Its up to the local bishop to moderate these things.

I know people believe I’m wrong on this, but the point I would make is that for all the alleged abuses that went on in Saginaw, none were stopped by Rome, there was no Roman interference in these things. What more evidence do you need?

 

[grotto]

Maybe interference with abuse was soft pedaled previously but we can only hope and pray that does not continue. Perhaps there was a great hopeful desire that conversion would occur rather than a confrontation. Some things are known only to God right?

 

[frommi]

grotto:

Some things are known only to God right?

You wouldn’t know that from the assumptions people make in these forums.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

The Bishop has an obligation to maintain unity with the universal church. Which is why we don’t have bishops ordaining married men or women because they think its ok to do so, because that would break unity.

Of course, but you could not have used a more obvious example. Even the poorly catechized would recognize this as an act of schism!

It is not up to a Roman curial official to decide that we should not have communion under both kinds because it cant be done reverently (this is an example). Its up to the local bishop to moderate these things.

In contrast to your first example, this is perhaps one of the most ambiguous ones available! We all know that the Church allows for some discretion, especially regarding when and how often to offer both Species.

…the point I would make is that for all the alleged abuses that went on in Saginaw, none were stopped by Rome, there was no Roman interference in these things. What more evidence do you need?

Plenty more, quite honestly. I would think that out of charity, Canonical penalties and direct condemnations are last resorts. Instead, instructions may be issued or indirect statements made with the expectation that they would be followed. Unity should be desired, not imposed. There are surely plenty of Catholics who have earned censure (to the letter of the law) who have never experienced it.

Regardless, in response to your earlier point, the Curia does in fact function with the authority and blessing of the Holy Father in most of its functions:Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

It is not up to a Roman curial official to decide that we should not have communion under both kinds because it cant be done reverently (this is an example). Its up to the local bishop to moderate these things.

I know people believe I’m wrong on this, but the point I would make is that for all the alleged abuses that went on in Saginaw, none were stopped by Rome, there was no Roman interference in these things. What more evidence do you need?

Stupid example, frommi, and you know it, and no one has named that as some kind of abuse. Not sure but isn’t that what’s called a straw man argument? I notice you don’t touch the major complaints and try to defend them do you? (Invalid matter, confession AFTER first communion, etc.)
As to your second point: It sounds as if you are saying, “Well, no one fixed it, so it must not have been broken!” Sounds like something my kids would say.

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:

Stupid example, frommi, and you know it, and no one has named that as some kind of abuse. Not sure but isn’t that what’s called a straw man argument? I notice you don’t touch the major complaints and try to defend them do you? (Invalid matter, confession AFTER first communion, etc.)
As to your second point: It sounds as if you are saying, “Well, no one fixed it, so it must not have been broken!” Sounds like something my kids would say.

Your missing my point, which is that its not up to me to defend or to defame these things.

We have an obligation as faithful Catholics to be obedient to our bishop. Not to look for a different answer when we don’t like what he is saying.

Period, end of story.

Which is why I’m saying, it’s not about comparing Kenneth Untener to Robert Carlson.

We keep going back to these items like “invalid matter”, when to the best of my knowledge, once again, no one ever declared the matter invalid.

We go back to lay preaching, when the Bishop, as moderator of the word, can allow that.

If a future pope can allow intercommunion at a pope’s funeral…if an anglican can preach at a mass in the presence of Cardinal Kasper…why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bishop had the authority to do these things?

It’s not about defending a practice, it’s about understanding why the practice was allowable.

 

[msproule]

frommi:

We have an obligation as faithful Catholics to be obedient to our bishop. Not to look for a different answer when we don’t like what he is saying.

Do you suggest that the Diocesean Bishop is immune to scrutiny, even when there is evidence of error? According to the last paragraph in the body of Redemptionis Sacramentum, a faithful Catholic also has the right to bring their case directly to the Holy See. It recognizes that the fault may lie with the Bishop himself and he may be unwilling to acknowledge his error:[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

We keep going back to these items like “invalid matter”, when to the best of my knowledge, once again, no one ever declared the matter invalid.

Would you feel more comfortable if we instead called it “illicit” matter? Without a doubt, that is permitted by Bishops against the wishes of the Holy See. Admittedly, validity is a more difficult point to address. As I said before, such a thing is passively identified as a “grave abuse”, even if the Holy See does not shut off the flow of honey into the kitchen!

We go back to lay preaching, when the Bishop, as moderator of the word, can allow that.

He can, but he is acting in defiance of the greater Church. Simply because the Swiss Guard did not storm the gates and gag the lay preacher does not mean the practice was condoned.

Finally, please review Canon 838. The Bishop is subject to the authority of the Successor of Peter, even in Liturgical matters.

 

[ekindermann]

frommi:

Your missing my point, which is that its not up to me to defend or to defame these things.
huh?
We have an obligation as faithful Catholics to be obedient to our bishop. Not to look for a different answer when we don’t like what he is saying.
even if he is disobedient
Period, end of story.
not quite.
Which is why I’m saying, it’s not about comparing Kenneth Untener to Robert Carlson.
Actually, you brought up comparing. I’m not even going to try to compare the two. I’m just naming the things Bishop Untener allowed, which I believe he shouldn’t have.
We keep going back to these items like “invalid matter”, when to the best of my knowledge, once again, no one ever declared the matter invalid.
You must be kidding.
We go back to lay preaching, when the Bishop, as moderator of the word, can allow that.
don’t think so…
If a future pope can allow intercommunion at a pope’s funeral…if an anglican can preach at a mass in the presence of Cardinal Kasper…why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bishop had the authority to do these things?
I’m not going to these places with you - let’s stick to the here and now. Don’t try to bring up other topics now that are only going to distract us from the issues here.
It’s not about defending a practice, it’s about understanding why the practice was allowable.
That’s only if they were, which they weren’t.

 

[frommi]

ekindermann:
The Bishop was not disobedient. That’s the problem. There is an element that concoted these tales of disobedience without having a full understanding of what he had the competent authority to do.

It’s really, truly, THAT simple.

You can’t forum shop for a bisho you’d like to obey. It’s the one overseeing your local church that you have to obey, and work with to bring the kingdom to fruition.

 

[Orionthehunter]

frommi:

The Bishop was not disobedient. That’s the problem. There is an element that concoted these tales of disobedience without having a full understanding of what he had the competent authority to do.

It’s really, truly, THAT simple.

You can’t forum shop for a bisho you’d like to obey. It’s the one overseeing your local church that you have to obey, and work with to bring the kingdom to fruition.

I think that issue is that the prior Bishop believed sincerely that his actions and directives were within his legitimate purview. Now, Rome and the USCCB has determined that some of these actions and directives were outside of his purview and Bishop Carlson is directed to correct these actions and directives.

In the case of those who followed the previous Bishop and those who follow Bishop Carlson are properly conforming to reasonable expectations of a faithful Catholic.

Personally, while one might not have agreed w/ Bishop Untener or do not agree w/ Bishop Carlson, I don’t think the Church and Unity is served by debating the past issues. Bishop Carlson is a man who will do what he believes in the best spiritual interests of the flock in conformance with his understanding of direction from the Holy Spirit, with proper disposition to submit to the authority of Rome. The question will be if the flock is prepared to submit and support the new Bishop. IMHO, if they do, the spiritual fruits will be abundant as we experienced in South Dakota.

 

[grotto]

AN ELEMENT THAT CONCONTED TALES OF DISOBEDIENCE???

What a stretch! What element could that be?
That’s some element!

The leftovers to be cleaned up are huge.

Is your definition of “disobedience” something that occurs long enough to be brought before the lawful court to be declared? Or could you consider that being disobedient first happens when a person decides to skirt authority and get around the known limit with deliberate action.

It is not possible to “forum shop” for a Bishop.

This is SIMPLE: Holy Roman Catholic Church demands that men, only, can become priests. That is pretty clear, and if one wants to be defiant and makes statements that reveal their opposition to this, defy good men from following their vocation to the priesthood except a few that “go along with”, then pursues appointing women in positions of control of churches that behave as “priestesses”, ignore the pleas of the faithful to stop this and other liturgical abuses…

well then, would you call that obedience?

One is most blessed to have conversion in their life and some are called without having prepared their lamp with oil.

 

[Orionthehunter]

grotto:

AN ELEMENT THAT CONCONTED TALES OF DISOBEDIENCE???

What a stretch! What element could that be?
That’s some element!

The leftovers to be cleaned up are huge.

Is your definition of “disobedience” something that occurs long enough to be brought before the lawful court to be declared? Or could you consider that being disobedient first happens when a person decides to skirt authority and get around the known limit with deliberate action.

It is not possible to “forum shop” for a Bishop.

This is SIMPLE: Holy Roman Catholic Church demands that men, only, can become priests. That is pretty clear, and if one wants to be defiant and makes statements that reveal their opposition to this, defy good men from following their vocation to the priesthood except a few that “go along with”, then pursues appointing women in positions of control of churches that behave as “priestesses”, ignore the pleas of the faithful to stop this and other liturgical abuses…

well then, would you call that obedience?

One is most blessed to have conversion in their life and some are called without having prepared their lamp with oil.

My mom didn’t want me to play with matches. I took out some matches and decided to build a bonfire to roast some marshmellows. The dry bush nearby caught fire and the backyard was destroyed. Was I being disobedient?

Well, if I didn’t know my mother didn’t want me to play with matches, I wasn’t disobedient but was ignorant.

If she had told me her directive but I thought what I wasn’t doing was “playing” but “cooking”, I wasn’t disobedient but “confused” on the fullness of her directive.

If she had told me and I knew I was “playing”, I was disobedient.

I don’t think it serves a purpose to try to delve into the heart and motivation of whether Bishop Untener was disobedient, “confused” or ignorant (I don’t choose this word to be derogatory but only to assert that possibly he didn’t understand).

Where we are is that the Holy Spirit via Rome has chosen a new Bishop with clear direction and authority to embark on a path different than Bishop Untener. For those who look back and see the good did by Bishop Untener, thank God for these fruits. For those who look back and see the ill-effects of Bishop Untener (i.e. a dearth of seminarians), thank God for the progress your new Bishop has made in this regard. In every crisis and blessing, there is an opportunity to cooperate in God’s plan and rest assured that God was always with you.

 

[singerlady]

Orion,

To make your match analogy relevant, we need to go one step further. In telling you not to play with matches, what was your mother’s motive? Was it to wield power over you, or to keep you safe? You see, it isn’t Bishop Untener’s motives that matter now. The rumblings of “this bishop(Carlson) is trying to take us backwards” are really getting to be hard to hear. The people saying this are those who were on board with everything Bishop Untener did. These people make up a rather large percentage of the diocese. As a result, Bishop Carlson’s job is made harder.

In addition, since Bishop Untener and those who worked closely with him, made sure that the only priests he ordained were those who were in agreement with female ordination, tolerance of the gay lifestyle, etc., again, Bishop Carlson’s job is harder.

Those of us who saw this happening were “encouraged” to keep our mouths shut in the interest of unity. Bishop Untener also made a decision to bring a priest into this diocese who was known to him to have been removed from the priesthood in another state for reasons of pedophelia. This is when I began to question other things that the bishop stood for. Whether his motives were pure or not, damage was done. Just as in your match analogy. Whether you meant to disobey or not, the yard was destroyed.

I can remember being at a GIRM meeting at which Bishop Untener was present. His spokeswoman said more than once, “this is as far as we can go without getting into trouble.” This tells me that the mindset was not obedience, but rather, “let’s see how far we can push the envelope.”

Those of us who have been muzzled, lo, these many years, want to speak now. Please let us. Some of are still dealing with pastors who refuse to work with this bishop. We need some place to come.

 

[frommi]

singerlady:

Orion,

In addition, since Bishop Untener and those who worked closely with him, made sure that the only priests he ordained were those who were in agreement with female ordination, tolerance of the gay lifestyle, etc., again, Bishop Carlson’s job is harder.

Those of us who saw this happening were “encouraged” to keep our mouths shut in the interest of unity. Bishop Untener also made a decision to bring a priest into this diocese who was known to him to have been removed from the priesthood in another state for reasons of pedophelia. This is when I began to question other things that the bishop stood for. Whether his motives were pure or not, damage was done. Just as in your match analogy. Whether you meant to disobey or not, the yard was destroyed.

I can remember being at a GIRM meeting at which Bishop Untener was present. His spokeswoman said more than once, “this is as far as we can go without getting into trouble.” This tells me that the mindset was not obedience, but rather, “let’s see how far we can push the envelope.”
.

Thats a lie…the former bishop did not make sure all of his priests were in “lock step” with his views. And even if he did, how is that different from what Bishop Carlson is looking for now? Do you think he’s going to ordain someone who he is not comfortable with their views on things?

Now…as far as the priest with a history of pedophelia goes…check the records on this…he was accused in one diocese and after treatment was allowed back into ministry (this was before the dallas charter). The bishop removed him from ministry before DALLAS, and in what was quite a departure, APOLOGIZED for his actions. Something people are still waiting for a certain red-hatted individual who got a retirement job in Rome to do.

The Diocese of Saginaw has not paid out one red cent to a victim of pedophelia. No priest ordained by Ken Untener has been accused of such a thing.

I’m sorry but that needed to be cleared up.

 

[grotto]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_2_205.gif Thanks Orion, holding on to debris is not the way to move forward. I am so blessed to have found a great parish to belong to within the Diocese, the priest is holy, the Mass is celebrated with reverence according to the GIRM, and the parishoners are kind, friendly, work together, and the numbers are growing strong. Enough that a beautiful new addition has been built to accomodate all those beating a path to the doors! We do have to drive 80 miles round trip but when you have been hungry for so long you don’t even mind. What I do miss being able to do is take part in all that is offered outside of Holy Mass on Sunday but that may be possible from time to time, especially when winter has gone.

(The price of oil is high, but I am keeping my lamp full, I pray.)

 

[singerlady]

frommi:

Thats a lie…the former bishop did not make sure all of his priests were in “lock step” with his views. And even if he did, how is that different from what Bishop Carlson is looking for now? Do you think he’s going to ordain someone who he is not comfortable with their views on things?

Now…as far as the priest with a history of pedophelia goes…check the records on this…he was accused in one diocese and after treatment was allowed back into ministry (this was before the dallas charter). The bishop removed him from ministry before DALLAS, and in what was quite a departure, APOLOGIZED for his actions. Something people are still waiting for a certain red-hatted individual who got a retirement job in Rome to do.

The Diocese of Saginaw has not paid out one red cent to a victim of pedophelia. No priest ordained by Ken Untener has been accused of such a thing.

I’m sorry but that needed to be cleared up.

The lie, then, is not mine. There was a screening process in place when Bishop Untener was here. This was told to me by a priest in this diocese, AND by someone seeking ordination.

As for the pedophile priest? I’m very much closer to this situation than you. You need to check a few records yourself. It was much more than an accusation regarding this priest. And, when Bishop Untener apologized, it was not for putting children at risk, it was for not realizing that people would have a problem with it. There is much more to the story, and this forum is not for that purpose, but you called me a liar and you don’t know what you are talking about. In addition, the diocese and several parishes have paid a price for that decision that money will never remedy.

This is my last response to you, Frommi. You do not live in this diocese and the contacts you have are not, to me, credible sources. Plus, your tendency to resort to personal attacks is a little tiresome.

 

[grotto]

Amen, Amen!

 

[frommi]

singerlady:

The lie, then, is not mine. There was a screening process in place when Bishop Untener was here. This was told to me by a priest in this diocese, AND by someone seeking ordination.

As for the pedophile priest? I’m very much closer to this situation than you. You need to check a few records yourself. It was much more than an accusation regarding this priest. And, when Bishop Untener apologized, it was not for putting children at risk, it was for not realizing that people would have a problem with it. There is much more to the story, and this forum is not for that purpose, but you called me a liar and you don’t know what you are talking about. In addition, the diocese and several parishes have paid a price for that decision that money will never remedy.

This is my last response to you, Frommi. You do not live in this diocese and the contacts you have are not, to me, credible sources. Plus, your tendency to resort to personal attacks is a little tiresome.

I don’t doubt the veracity of my ‘sources’. I’m surprised that you would call priests of the diocese ‘not credible sources’.

It’s interesting how people can personally attack a deceased bishop, but are unwilling to be called out on those attacks in a personal way.

 

[grotto]

No one wants personal attack. I haven’t heard any towards the late B. Ken. In the performance of his duties he incurred protests and criticism justly deserved. Personally, he was very popular, charismatic, played the piano pretty good and could be very entertaining. I choose to believe his concern for the poor was genujne as evidenced by his kind words towards them. There is an over abundance of poor in the “rust belt” of Michigan. May he rest in peace and the Mercy of God rest upon him.

 

[shs-aod]

"The lie, then, is not mine. There was a screening process in place when Bishop Untener was here. This was told to me by a priest in this diocese, AND by someone seeking ordination.’

The “screening process” you allude to was put in place by the afore-mentioned Bishop Untener. (strike one…)

“As for the pedophile priest? I’m very much closer to this situation than you. You need to check a few records yourself. It was much more than an accusation regarding this priest.”

The last time I looked, the choir-loft was about 150’ away from the sanctuary. You’re not nearly as close as you would like some of us to believe. In fact, you’re dangerously close to embarrassing yourself. You really don’t want to go there… (strike two!)

“There is much more to the story, and this forum is not for that purpose, but you called me a liar and you don’t know what you are talking about.”

You broached the subject in this forum, not “Frommi”, not me.

Now, by your personal fiat it’s suddenly “not for that purpose”.

You’re not a malicious “liar”, and nobody has accused you of such. You are, however, hopelessly ill-informed on this matter.

Wanna’ continue this matter on an e-mail or PM? I’m easily accessible…

You really don’t want to go there… trust me. (strike three!!)