Catholic bishop resigns, admits he has 2 kids

[E_7]

I don’t know, I felt fear for him. =/

 

[Godfollower]

You’re speechless? Not if you were born say before 1953, meaning before Vatican II. I know my history and am not naive enough to believe things like this did not go on prior to Vatican II, but having a foot in both worlds so to speak I see the continued moral decline of Catholicism in the west. My experience was this, as a Catholic public school child I went to “Sunday” School, then when I was confirmed we went to, what they now call CCD on Wednesday evenings. Before Vatican II we learned our Catechism (the Fatih) and the doctrine/dogma of the Church. After Vatican II we learned Social Justice and how to pray for street organizers (I specifically remember the lay teacher going on and on about some priest, I think his name was Groppi, in Milwaukee.) The Catechism was thrown out the door with the rest of Faith teachings.

So this is the flotsam and jetsam of Vatican II. Yes, the windows were thrown open, but that is not fresh air we smell.

If you really believe that this man had a secret family because of Vatican II and would not have had a secret family if it weren’t for Vatican II, then you apparently believe that he was able to get all the way to the rank of bishop without ever learning that he had taken a vow of celibacy.

Believe me, priests know whether they’re allowed to have sex. Even post Vatican II. If he stumbled, don’t blame that on the Council. That’s just silly.

 

[PaulCathSinner]

When you go to church., always remember that you go to pray and to listen to the words of God proclaimed through His ministers, do not act like them. They are humans after all, no matter how hard they try to be as perfect as Jesus. We had corrupt popes. Do not condemn the Church because some of her members are corrupt. Yes, they made a choice to be consecrated beings to God, still, they are humans and humans are weak. SINNING IS A CHOICE. We have been created FREE and we will answer to our Creator.

 

[Patavium]

God gave me faith. Men did not give me faith.

This does not even shake my belief in God, His teachings, and His Church. Men of the Church may fall in error as we are vessels of clay full of mud, but the Church as a whole is protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[CMatt25]

With 2 kids and even though he has resigned, would he still be identified as a Catholic here?

 

[gilliam]

With 2 kids and even though he has resigned, would he still be identified as a Catholic here?

Of course. He committed a sin against his vows, He wasn’t excommunicated.

 

[ringil]

oops. . . . .

 

[CMatt25]

Of course. He committed a sin against his vows, He wasn’t excommunicated.

So had a baptized and confirmed Catholic as this Apostolic successor was, been told he was to refrain under penalty of excommunication from receiving the Eucharist or holding parish roles until he was reconciled, would not still be considered a Catholic, albeit perhaps non practicing, by the Church in the meantime?

 

[Godfollower]

So had a baptized and confirmed Catholic as this Apostolic successor was, been told he was to refrain under penalty of excommunication from receiving the Eucharist or holding parish roles until he was reconciled, would not still be considered a Catholic, albeit perhaps non practicing, by the Church in the meantime?

Of course he’d still be Catholic. Even an excommunicated Catholic is still Catholic.

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Excommunication para. 1 (emphasis added).

 

[Dale_M]

Here is the official statement from Archbishop Gomez

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

I have some sad and difficult information to share with you. Bishop Gabino Zavala, auxiliary bishop for the San Gabriel Pastoral Region, informed me in early December that he is the father of two minor teenage children, who live with their mother in another state.

Bishop Zavala also told me that he submitted his resignation to the Holy Father in Rome, which was accepted. Since that time, he has not been in ministry and will be living privately.

The Archdiocese has reached out to the mother and children to provide spiritual care as well as funding to assist the children with college costs. The family’s identity is not known to the public, and I wish to respect their right to privacy.

Let us pray for all those impacted by this situation and for each other as we reflect on this letter.

May the Lord Jesus, through the intercession of Mary, grant you peace.

Most Reverend José H. Gomez
Archbishop of Los Angeles

la-archdiocese.org/org/media/Press%20Releases/2012-01-04-Zavala.pdf

I think it is important to note that the archdiocese will look after the welfare of the mother and children.

Since Bishop Zavala is 60 years old, perhaps he will simply retire to a life of privacy.

 

[Whadyamean]

I’m speechless. Here is the news.

Once again it appears that, religion, any religion, and goodness, are only incidentally congruent. Goodness is of God, but religion? It is thought to be of God, but if so, why is there no discernible demographic that shows the success of membership in any religion to be statistically different from the general population, say in jail inmates. I have wondered about this for a long time…Any answers?

 

[LilyM]

Once again it appears that, religion, any religion, and goodness, are only incidentally congruent. Goodness is of God, but religion? It is thought to be of God, but if so, why is there no discernible demographic that shows the success of membership in any religion to be statistically different from the general population, say in jail inmates. I have wondered about this for a long time…Any answers?

Well, I view it more as religion prevents most practitioners from being worse than average rather than making them so much better than average.

On the extreme edges, there are no Christian equivalents of the evil perpetrated by the avowedly non-Christian (and pretty well rabidly atheist) Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.

Neither, I would venture to say, is there really any atheist philanthropy equivalent to the totally self-donating charity done by a Mother Teresa or her like amongst Christian and non-Christian religious. Not to say that there aren’t people like Bill Gates who give a lot, but from what I’ve seen they certainly don’t deny themselves even the slightest luxury while going about it.

 

[Godfollower]

Once again it appears that, religion, any religion, and goodness, are only incidentally congruent. Goodness is of God, but religion? It is thought to be of God, but if so, why is there no discernible demographic that shows the success of membership in any religion to be statistically different from the general population, say in jail inmates. I have wondered about this for a long time…Any answers?

The short answer to your question is that it takes one example and draws a worldwide conclusion from it – a common fallacy, and one that undermines the entire argument based on it.

A bishop (allegedly) violated his vows; therefore all religion is bad? Really? The argument fails from its own weight.

I might suggest a question that (in my humble opinion) is better suited to what I think you’re trying to get at: Why is there so much sin in the world? Given that we have all these churches and religious organizations established for the purpose of promoting good and suppressing evil, why is there still so much evil in the world?

Then look to see whether any religion answers that question. Catholic theology teaches that there will always be inequities, unfairness, dishonesty, and downright fraud until the day Jesus returns in His glory. God does not preserve us from sin, because we are granted free will. He could in an instant prevent all of us from sinning, ever again; but that would mean taking away our ability to love Him and each other freely.

The existence of free will, by definition, presupposes the ability to choose wrongly. Because we are all subject to sin, we are all prone to commit sin.

The example given in this thread is only one more unfortunate example of the manifold sins humans commit every day. That doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t “work”; Catholic theology accurately describes the human condition, so it works very well.

But explaining the truth of God doesn’t automatically entail prevention of sins. It just doesn’t work that way.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

According to Catholic-Hierearchy, Cardinal Mahony consecrated him as auxiliary back in 1994. If the archdiocese is concerning themselves with payment of college costs, it’s likely that this affair would have been going on at the time of his consecration. It is amazing that he would have been able to keep this a secret for so long. One’s got to ask how Cardinal Mahony would NOT have known about this regarding one of his closest collaborators.

Regardless, my prayers go out to all involved.

Thanks be to God for holy bishops like Archbishop Gomez!

Yes, my daughter who will be going to college next school year was born in 1994. Young teens may mean they are a bit younger, but certainly this has been going on for years and started at least soon after his consecration. So so sad.

Praying also.

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, I view it more as religion prevents most practitioners from being worse than average rather than making them so much better than average.

On the extreme edges, there are no Christian equivalents of the evil perpetrated by the avowedly non-Christian (and pretty well rabidly atheist) Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.

Neither, I would venture to say, is there really any atheist philanthropy equivalent to the totally self-donating charity done by a Mother Teresa or her like amongst Christian and non-Christian religious. Not to say that there aren’t people like Bill Gates who give a lot, but from what I’ve seen they certainly don’t deny themselves even the slightest luxury while going about it.

The Gates foundation is one of the largest philantropic organisations on the planet, and with Gates’ wish that all the money be spent within 50 years of his death, he’ll sink something like 50 billion - that’s 50 billion - into good causes centred around health and education.

I dont see anything wrong with Gates living a decent standard of living. Does he have to totally deny himself everything in order for his charitable donations to have some kind of merit?

Some do have questions about Mother Teresa’s finances, and the people she accepted funds from, not all of which were used for the poor, but to build dozens of nuns and priests houses throughout the world.

But the bit I always find interesting, is, in a thread defending a particular religion (in this case Catholicism, but it could be an faith), the core of which being the negative actions of one or two or a few people of that faith do NOT in any way reflect badly on the religion itself, but on the individuals concerned, the same ol same ol trotting out of Stalin, PolPot and Hitler as examples of atheists is considered perfectly legit, as if it was their atheism that made them do what they did and not their delusions of being demi-gods, their mental illnesses and their tyranical megalomaniacal totalistarianism



Sarah x

 

[LiveCatholic]

The Gates foundation is one of the largest philantropic organisations on the planet, and with Gates’ wish that all the money be spent within 50 years of his death, he’ll sink something like 50 billion - that’s 50 billion - into good causes centred around health and education.

I dont see anything wrong with Gates living a decent standard of living. Does he have to totally deny himself everything in order for his charitable donations to have some kind of merit?

Gates’ life work and his wealth are not synonymous. His work doesn’t stand for anything or represent any ideals–its business and technology, and therefore by definition inert and amoral.

 

[Whadyamean]

The short answer to your question is that it takes one example and draws a worldwide conclusion from it – a common fallacy, and one that undermines the entire argument based on it.

A bishop (allegedly) violated his vows; therefore all religion is bad? Really? The argument fails from its own weight.

I am sorry, but reading my lines I did not say where religion was “bad.” There can be no doubt that religious people have contributed much to the world at every level of good. What I did imply is that people are good or not irrespective of what faith or lack of it they “have.” I love reading, for instance, the poems of many Catholic and other Saints,

I might suggest a question that (in my humble opinion) is better suited to what I think you’re trying to get at: Why is there so much sin in the world? Given that we have all these churches and religious organizations established for the purpose of promoting good and suppressing evil, why is there still so much evil in the world?

That one seems pretty simple to me; there is no useful [protocol available publicly to delve into the reason for the Great Commandment or the Golden Rule. People are immature and believe incorrectly that there is advantage in feeling one’self to be superior to others in terms of needs and rights.

Then look to see whether any religion answers that question. Catholic theology teaches that there will always be inequities, unfairness, dishonesty, and downright fraud until the day Jesus returns in His glory. God does not preserve us from sin, because we are granted free will. He could in an instant prevent all of us from sinning, ever again; but that would mean taking away our ability to love Him and each other freely. Catholicism has a paradigm I know well, being one, and it is from an abstract point not very different in that respect from all the some 40K Christian sects. and other religions also preach the need for good and brotherly love, etc. Demographically, there seems to be little attributable one way or another in terms of simply goodness to any particular faith. I thng religon has a wonderful purpose, but seems not to address certain epidemiological questions and is therefore lacking an a vital aspect. Any religion, not just ours.

The existence of free will, by definition, presupposes the ability to choose wrongly. Because we are all subject to sin, we are all prone to commit sin.

Well, yes, you could state it that way, but there is free will and there is training and there is maturity. It is not all just one thing, eh?

The example given in this thread is only one more unfortunate example of the manifold sins humans commit every day. That doesn’t mean that religion doesn’t “work”; Catholic theology accurately describes the human condition, so it works very well.

OK, it might be as you say a kind of description, but how then is is statistically a better “cure” for that condition, giving all due respect to all the wonderful Saints it and other “ways” have produced?

But explaining the truth of God doesn’t automatically entail prevention of sins. It just doesn’t work that way.

But that is what I’m asking: if there seems to be little different in results from one faith to another, how then does all that work?

 

[atheistgirl]

if there seems to be little different in results from one faith to another, how then does all that work?

The common denominator seems to be ‘‘people’’!

There are good and bad everywhere.

And that includes all faiths and beliefs and those with none.

I have puzzled over the fact that someone, when given the gift of faith, and belonging to what they believe to be the only faith that has the fullness of all truth, this fact doesnt seem to stop them from doing terrible wrongs to their brothers and sisters - but then again, the death penalty doesnt seem to stop certain kinds of criminals either, and theyre pretty certain they’ll be caught and they know for sure they’ll be executed when they are.

As Megarry noted in Miscellany at Law … ‘‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’’ !

Sarah x

 

[LiveCatholic]

I am sorry, but reading my lines I did not say where religion was “bad.” There can be no doubt that religious people have contributed much to the world at every level of good. What I did imply is that people are good or not irrespective of what faith or lack of it they “have.” I love reading, for instance, the poems of many Catholic and other Saints,

This is a very two-dimensional picture of religious-ethical sociology you offer here. There should be a third dimension: the extent

religion, not just ours.

What religions have you come in contact with thus far, pray tell?

But that is what I’m asking: if there seems to be little different in results from one faith to another, how then does all that work?

Isn’t there, though? Come now, this is blind generalization in the extreme.

For instance, there have been ‘faiths’ where cannibalism is encouraged, where virgins are sacrificed, &c. Aren’t these–and ESPECIALLY the people who ADHERE to them in the fullest sense–conducive to wickedness or at least more wickedness? However, one can imagine ‘good’ people in these faiths, who retain their cannibal traditions only in some secular or emaciated form.

Further, there are modern day religions (ex: Islam) that if adhered to in its fullest sense would result in one behaving like its ‘hero,’ the ‘Prophet’ Muhammad who behaved SUPERLATIVELY according to the standards of 6th-7th century Arabia. Unfortunately values have changed since then…

Today, ‘good’ Muslims are ‘good’ insofar as they are secular or willing to part with their religious values.

 

[Hopey]

The common denominator seems to be ‘‘people’’!

There are good and bad everywhere.

And that includes all faiths and beliefs and those with none.

I have puzzled over the fact that someone, when given the gift of faith, and belonging to what they believe to be the only faith that has the fullness of all truth, this fact doesnt seem to stop them from doing terrible wrongs to their brothers and sisters - but then again, the death penalty doesnt seem to stop certain kinds of criminals either, and theyre pretty certain they’ll be caught and they know for sure they’ll be executed when they are.

As Megarry noted in Miscellany at Law … ‘‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’’ !

Sarah x

The answer is concupiscence. That means we all have the tendency to fall, sin, some greatly too. We have all inherited Original Sin and although Baptism washes that away, the tendency is still there. We are forever in need of God’s grace and a good bit of common sense like they used to have. Some of the rules not allowing men and women alone in rooms or for too long just make sense. And being accountable to someone, even Bishops, would seem necessarily as the scandal and damage they can do, as they are responsible for more, is greater. Praying as this is sad.