I wrote:Very astute, Neofight. I have a game like that where I look at the name of the original poster and the topic heading on the front page and then think of what the true story might be before opening the scandalised thread topic.
People see the thread topic on the front page. My question is that if you genuinely want the truth conveyed for the sake of Catholicism… why don’t you post a topic header like “Press misrepresenting another Catholic Cardinal to stir up doubt”. That’s how I would be approaching this phenomenon except you seem to relish the troubles. You’ve even gone as far as to say the press is the completely innocent player here. I used to work for an organisation who among other things ran a course on healthy group dynamics. There was significant attention paid to elements of the group who seemed to relish division and disunity and the tactics they used to throw a shark in the tank and then stand back with an innocent demeanour looking shocked. Food for thought.I wrote:
“(I wanted to note right away that Card O’Malley’s full quote is: “If I were founding a church, I’d love to have women priests, but Christ founded it, and what he has given us is something different.”, and that his comments are in support of the Church’s traditional teaching.)”
at the top of my OP to make sure everyone knows that what Card O’Malley said was in support of Church teaching.
In this forum the topic of the thread has to be the same as the title of the news article.People see the thread topic on the front page. My question is that if you genuinely want the truth conveyed for the sake of Catholicism… why don’t you post a topic header like “Press misrepresenting another Catholic Cardinal to stir up doubt”. That’s how I would be approaching this phenomenon except you seem to relish the troubles. I used to work for an organisation who among other things ran a course on healthy group dynamics. There was significant attention paid to elements of the group who seemed to relish division and disunity and the tactics they used to throw a shark in the tank and then stand back with an innocent demeanour looking shocked. Food for thought. You’ve even gone as far as to say the press is the completely innocent player here.
Bisco, just a polite request. Could you please quote when you reply to a post? It’s not always clear what you’re referencing.right. and yet, some here are claiming that is not what he said.
Shouldn’t a priest want to emulate Christ in all things?I wrote:
“(I wanted to note right away that Card O’Malley’s full quote is: “If I were founding a church, I’d love to have women priests, but Christ founded it, and what he has given us is something different.”, and that his comments are in support of the Church’s traditional teaching.)”
That would be difficult, because there were multiple postings that got it wrong…I actually find it easier when OPs are not quoted, if they are longer than about 3 sentences, they become distracting.Bisco, just a polite request. Could you please quote when you reply to a post? It’s not always clear what you’re referencing.
apologies, post #14 refutes the quote posted by the o/p. and i was responding to post #21, where the o/p reiterated the quote from the original post.Bisco, just a polite request. Could you please quote when you reply to a post? It’s not always clear what you’re referencing.
Well why not reference articles that focused on the main points of the 60 minutes interview which were to do with the Bishop Finn scandal? There is loads of those. It’s the tabloid ‘shock horror’ press that pick out a little insignificant word or expression and whip it up into the scandalously scandalous. Similar to how of all the things that could have been reported about the off the cuff Kasper interview… they beat up that he was a racist!!In this forum the topic of the thread has to be the same as the title of the news article.
you’re getting a little bit overheated. some of us would simply like to know why statements like these are being made by some of our most respected leaders. could it be that Cardinal Sean felt the need to appease the feminists watching to the interview?Well why not reference articles that focused on the main points of the 60 minutes interview which were to do with the Bishop Finn scandal? There is loads of those. It’s the tabloid ‘shock horror’ press that pick out a little insignificant word or expression and whip it up into the scandalously scandalous. Similar to how of all the things that could have been reported about the off the cuff Kasper interview… they beat up that he was a racist!!
So, you don’t like this article because it is “scandalous”, but you would prefer an article about the Bishop Finn scandal?Well why not reference articles that focused on the main points of the 60 minutes interview which were to do with the Bishop Finn scandal? There is loads of those. It’s the tabloid ‘shock horror’ press that pick out a little insignificant word or expression and whip it up into the scandalously scandalous. Similar to how of all the things that could have been reported about the off the cuff Kasper interview… they beat up that he was a racist!!
Well isn’t that his job? Wasn’t he appointed by the Vatican as the American Cardinal overseeing the child abuse scandal in the American Church? Isn’t that why the media wanted to interview him? Do you really believe they wanted to unearth his secret deviance regarding women Priests?So, you don’t like this article because it is “scandalous”, but you would prefer an article about the Bishop Finn scandal?
Honestly, I think that since the interviewer was pressing him, his intention was more along the lines of “hypothetically, I’d be fine with accepting women Priests if that had been how God willed it” in the sense that his feelings about it are irrelevant one way or the other, rather than saying he actually disagrees.Cdl. O’Malley is one of the most liberal bishops out there. That said what he said wasn’t exactly terrible, but still disappointing. A bishop should be highly versed in theology and understanding of doctrine. He should understand the reasoning for why women cannot be priests and as such should have formed his opinion to conform to what Christ desires. What he’s pretty much saying is “I disagree with God, but He sets the rules not me.”
I think this is the best way to look at it.Honestly, I think that since the interviewer was pressing him, his intention was more along the lines of “hypothetically, I’d be fine with accepting women Priests if that had been how God willed it” in the sense that his feelings about it are irrelevant one way or the other, rather than saying he actually disagrees.
In other words, we assent to the male only priesthood not because we “like” it, but because God willed it, and our feelings about it are irrelevant.
Right. Given things like this, I think it is more than fair to extend him a little slack here and assume that he was not trying to make some grand public statement about how he disagrees with Catholic teaching. If you think about it, his purpose was really much more the opposite: to confirm the teaching of Christ on the all-male priesthood.Cardinal Sean O’Malley is akin to Pope Francis.
Being a Franciscan, he has taken a vow of poverty and lives it.
When he became Bishop of the Boston Archdioceses, he sold the Bishops mansion and moved into an apartment on the south end of Boston.
He sold the Bishop’s summer residency on Cape Cod, which was worth $2 million.
He use to ride public transportation to work with his brown-bag lunch, but people knowing him, ended up delaying his arrival at work, so he drives himself in a small low-end car.
He took over the archdioceses after being rocked by the worse sex abuse scandal in the country and turned it around.
Cardinal Sean O’Malley is a humble holy man, no doubt about it.
Jim
I think the fact that CBS chose him to interview rather than, say AB Chaput or Card George, throws a lot of that slack out the window. I happen to know he didn’t give traditionalists much slack there in Boston.Right. Given things like this, I think it is more than fair to extend him a little slack here and assume that he was not trying to make some grand public statement about how he disagrees with Catholic teaching. If you think about it, his purpose was really much more the opposite: to confirm the teaching of Christ on the all-male priesthood.