Chicago Catholics Outraged by Hillary Speech

[Tom317]

I think he might still be thought of as uber-orthodox (though perhaps not uber conservative and hardline in tactics).

You know, the so-called uber-conservative or hardliners in the Church are simply people who feel that the faith was quite sound for 1960+ years before Vatican II and that there have been radical changes since then, and that V2 was merely patroal in nature and really changed no formal teachings at all. Inventions like removing altar rails, moving tabernacles, etc., were not called for in V2, yet the new world Church has taken the council to mean just that.

As for Cardinal George, I will say again, and very simply, that at the parish level (Churches and schools) things are as bad as when he came here ten years ago and many Chicagoland parishes can compete with California for the “most liberal” label. I find it to be most uncharitable for me to go into further detail because then this thread simply becomes a way to bash “Cardinal George,” and I love and respect him too much to go there.

 

[Tom317]

Well, then, let’s start another to discuss just that if you must, or are you only interested in “bashing Hilary and the bishop”?

The one last point I will add, and this is a compliment, is that Cardinal George has worked very hard at the seminary level, for things were truly horrible there before he arrived. That is to his credit and the future should see Chicago gain some more orthodox faithful Priests.

 

[frommi]

The one last point I will add, and this is a compliment, is that Cardinal George has worked very hard at the seminary level, for things were truly horrible there before he arrived. That is to his credit and the future should see Chicago gain some more orthodox faithful Priests.

even if none of them are from native the archdiocese

 

[chicago]

You know, the so-called uber-conservative or hardliners in the Church are simply people who feel that the faith was quite sound for 1960+ years before Vatican II and that there have been radical changes since then, and that V2 was merely patroal in nature and really changed no formal teachings at all. Inventions like removing altar rails, moving tabernacles, etc., were not called for in V2, yet the new world Church has taken the council to mean just that.

So what did you expect of the cardinal, to stronghandedly reinstitute a sort of preconciliar Church?

As for Cardinal George, I will say again, and very simply, that at the parish level (Churches and schools) things are as bad as when he came here ten years ago and many Chicagoland parishes can compete with California for the “most liberal” label. I find it to be most uncharitable for me to go into further detail because then this thread simply becomes a way to bash “Cardinal George,” and I love and respect him too much to go there.

I will to agree - to an extent (I do think that there has been notable change in certain places, general improvement overall, and that there are many parishes where things aren’t all that bad - even if they’re not always perfect). In other places things are still troublesome. Often this is simply tied to the nature of the parish and it’s leadership, however; a problem which is not quickly overcome, especially if there are entrenched types.

That said, you basically already have “bashed Cardinal George” by your general statements. It would be helpful, therefore if you could provide some examples (again, no need to name names or parishes or anything like that, just point out some of the problems as you perceive them) as to what it is that you are talking about and what you believe ought to be done. Then we could have a real conversation about what a bishop can or can’t effectively accomplish. As it stands, you’ve basically fired a canon shot in the dark with no real ability for anyone to adjudicate if your accusations are justifiable or mere bellyaching.

 

[frommi]

and I love and respect him too much to go there.

You’ve done an awfully good job of doing so thus far in this thread.

 

[chicago]

The one last point I will add, and this is a compliment, is that Cardinal George has worked very hard at the seminary level, for things were truly horrible there before he arrived. That is to his credit and the future should see Chicago gain some more orthodox faithful Priests.

Though, not likely from the native youth population upon whom he’s basically giving up (just when that population was starting to recover from past mistakes). Most of our vocations these days are recruited immigrants and a small splattering of late “second career” vocations.

 

[chicago]

I have no idea about this diocese or any other in terms of how bishops handle things, but I was wondering whether you have ever read this piece and if you think it is on target?:
http://http://www.wf-f.org/JFH-ConservativeBishops.html
http://www.wf-f.org/JFH-ConservativeBishops.html

I think that there is a lot of truth to it. All the more so at the time that it was written (1995). Though I don’t necessarily agree that a stong, conservative bishop alone could have held the tide. Cardinal Cody in Chicago, for example, was considered by most to be that and yet this is when liberalism abounded among the presbyterate here. It would seem that in recent years the circumstances in the Church and candidates for episcopacy is changing some to the point that more bishops are getting bolder. Yet the Church has always been embrolied in a certain internal politic, and what Dr. Hitchcock spells out is merely the more recent progressions of such. There may also be other factors, which include the nature, locale, culture, population and secular politics of the particular place which a bishop heads which create unique challenges to his governance that must be taken into account. It’s a lot easier for a Fabian Bruskiewitz to be balsy in a Nebraska diocese than it is for a Francis George to try the same things in a cardinaliate metropolian archdiocese, which is the 2nd most populous and financially richest in the U.S.

 

[Tom317]

Though, not likely from the native youth population upon whom he’s basically giving up (just when that population was starting to recover from past mistakes). Most of our vocations these days are recruited immigrants and a small splattering of late “second career” vocations.

Yes, I know, which supports what I have been saying. If you study faithful dioceses, they still have youngger men vocations, whereas the more liberal places like Chicago do not.

 

[Tom317]

So what did you expect of the cardinal, to stronghandedly reinstitute a sort of preconciliar Church?

I will to agree - to an extent (I do think that there has been notable change in certain places, general improvement overall, and that there are many parishes where things aren’t all that bad - even if they’re not always perfect). In other places things are still troublesome. Often this is simply tied to the nature of the parish and it’s leadership, however; a problem which is not quickly overcome, especially if there are entrenched types.

That said, you basically already have “bashed Cardinal George” by your general statements. It would be helpful, therefore if you could provide some examples (again, no need to name names or parishes or anything like that, just point out some of the problems as you perceive them) as to what it is that you are talking about and what you believe ought to be done. Then we could have a real conversation about what a bishop can or can’t effectively accomplish. As it stands, you’ve basically fired a canon shot in the dark with no real ability for anyone to adjudicate if your accusations are justifiable or mere bellyaching.

I am sorry you feel I have bashed Cardinal George, and I will stop so that no further “bashing” comes from my fingers. As I said before, sometimes a situation calls for pastoral skills, other times the situation calls for enforcement and correction. If a person has the ability to combine those skills, that is wonderful. Most people are one or then other, which does not mean they are bad leaders, it just means that the situation calls for something else.

 

[Tom317]

even if none of them are from native the archdiocese

The local situation with seminarians was a complete mess, Cardinal George has done very good work in that area, which I hope will bring better news for the future.

 

[Tom317]

You’ve done an awfully good job of doing so thus far in this thread.

Not true, I have spoken only generally and it is things that most faithful Catholics in Chicago already know.

 

[frommi]

Not true, I have spoken only generally and it is things that most faithful Catholics in Chicago already know.

Not true…it’s stuff that you are inferring erroneously.

I’m part of the faithful in Chicago…I don’t see this dire seventh level of hell liberalism that you want to keep going on about.

 

[Tom317]

Not true…it’s stuff that you are inferring erroneously.

I’m part of the faithful in Chicago…I don’t see this dire seventh level of hell liberalism that you want to keep going on about.

Okay good. Thanks for letting me know, I guess I was wrong.

 

[chicago]

Yes, I know, which supports what I have been saying. If you study faithful dioceses, they still have youngger men vocations, whereas the more liberal places like Chicago do not.

Considering that even these tend to get a lot of “imported” priests and knowing how there are so few minor seminaries around these days, I don’t know that I can entirely agree about the evidence there. I will wholeheartedly agree that a liberalized presbyterate which is not dedicated to or believing in the devlopment of their parish’s boys and young men towards the priesthood is fatal… and that is sadly no small factor in what we have here.

 

[chicago]

The local situation with seminarians was a complete mess, Cardinal George has done very good work in that area, which I hope will bring better news for the future.

While I certainly give credit to George for moving things more significantly forward, I would argue that the changes toward positive and necessary reform were already starting to be made in Bernardin’s latter years.

Also, don’t forget that the cardinal’s vicar general is his former seminay rector.

 

[Tom317]

Considering that even these tend to get a lot of “imported” priests and knowing how there are so few minor seminaries around these days, I don’t know that I can entirely agree about the evidence there. I will wholeheartedly agree that a liberalized presbyterate which is not dedicated to or believing in the devlopment of their parish’s boys and young men towards the priesthood is fatal… and that is sadly no small factor in what we have here.

If you take a close look at orthodox diocese, the picture becomes a bit differennt:

Lincoln, Nebraska
Priestly vocations

…*Even more impressive is the level of priestly vocations in Lincoln, …so much so that a new seminary for the diocese is now under consideration. Lincoln’s present 46 seminarians study at the more orthodox U.S. major seminaries such as St Charles Borromeo in Philadelphia and Mt St Mary’s in Emmitsburg, Maryland. An equivalent number of seminarians for the Melbourne Archdiocese would be over 500!

In a recent interview with Roger McCaffrey of the US-based journal The Latin Mass, Bishop Bruskewitz remarked that his diocese was blessed with a “contented, happy priesthood”, an abundance of young priests and seminarians, no external signs of dissent, nor any of the clerical scandals which have plagued other American dioceses.*

 

[Tom317]

While I certainly give credit to George for moving things more significantly forward, I would argue that the changes toward positive and necessary reform were already starting to be made in Bernardin’s latter years.

Also, don’t forget that the cardinal’s vicar general is his former seminay rector.

I would not agree with you on that.

 

[chicago]

If you take a close look at orthodox diocese, the picture becomes a bit differennt:

Lincoln, Nebraska
Priestly vocations

…*Even more impressive is the level of priestly vocations in Lincoln, …so much so that a new seminary for the diocese is now under consideration. Lincoln’s present 46 seminarians study at the more orthodox U.S. major seminaries such as St Charles Borromeo in Philadelphia and Mt St Mary’s in Emmitsburg, Maryland. An equivalent number of seminarians for the Melbourne Archdiocese would be over 500!

In a recent interview with Roger McCaffrey of the US-based journal The Latin Mass, Bishop Bruskewitz remarked that his diocese was blessed with a “contented, happy priesthood”, an abundance of young priests and seminarians*, no external signs of dissent, nor any of the clerical scandals which have plagued other American dioceses.

Oh, yes, I know. But how many of Lincoln’s candidates are NATIVE to the Lincoln Diocese? That’s the key to sustaining a diocesan priesthood longterm.

 

[chicago]

I would not agree with you on that.

Alright, then. Why not? And, more specifically, what has George worked on that Bernardin was not trying to start seeing through?

 

[Tom317]

Alright, then. Why not? And, more specifically, what has George worked on that Bernardin was not trying to start seeing through?

The shape of the diocese got that way under Bernardin and Cody, not under George.

As I said before, Cardinal George has worked hard on the seminary (The University of St. Mary of the Lake), cleaning it up from years of abuse. I truly believe that might be the one area that CG develops a lasting legacy.