Chicago Catholics Outraged by Hillary Speech

[Tom317]

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.

I am not sure, but supposedly there is an abduance of young men, and those are typically local vocations. Either way it does not matter because their diocese is attracting more vocations then they need.

 

[chicago]

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.

So if he had to “clean it up” (and I agree that this did need work and has received it under his leadership), what does this say about his clear acceptance of Fr. Canary as it’s rector and now vicar general? Canary, of course, became rector of Niles College Seminary in order to rebuild after Red McLaughlin had it. And this happenned around the same time that Quigley was reorganized… all Bernardin’s work.

Remember, the “seminary” in Chicago is not just the major theologate at Mundelein (who calls it by it’s formal name, anyway?) It is a much more extensive system which includes high school, college, and particular houses of formation. So addressing it’s issues usually involved a certain progression in promotions through pecking order, starting at the lower levels and building upward.

 

[chicago]

I am not sure, but supposedly there is an abduance of young men, and those are typically local vocations. Either way it does not matter because their diocese is attracting more vocations then they need.

No, it DOES matter because every diocese ultimately needs to build their own native presbyterate rather than always relying upon those who immigrate to another diocese. And, realistically, one of the reasons why some diocese like Lincoln tend to have “more vocations than they need” is because their bishop is willing to take in men from elsewhere. Now, that’s fair enough, if this is where they can go, be accepted, and minister. Especially if their native diocese won’t accept them for whatever reason. But if a diocese is truly being fruitful in relation to others in the way you suggest then the real indicator is the number of native vocations which it fosters, not merely those who come from elsewhere.

 

[Tom317]

No, it DOES matter because every diocese ultimately needs to build their own native presbyterate rather than always relying upon those who immigrate to another diocese. And, realistically, one of the reasons why some diocese like Lincoln tend to have “more vocations than they need” is because their bishop is willing to take in men from elsewhere. Now, that’s fair enough, if this is where they can go, be accepted, and minister. Especially if their native diocese won’t accept them for whatever reason. But if a diocese is truly being fruitful in relation to others in the way you suggest then the real indicator is the number of native vocations which it fosters, not merely those who come from elsewhere.

I disagree. In this environment, there is more need to have holy Priests, then it is to worry about where they come from. That being said, it is my understanding that Lincoln has local vocations, not immigrant based, and they also enjoy a very high level of faithful nuns, when compared to other dioceses.

 

[chicago]

So if he had to “clean it up” (and I agree that this did need work and has received it under his leadership), what does this say about his clear acceptance of Fr. Canary as it’s rector and now vicar general? Canary, of course, became rector of Niles College Seminary in order to rebuild after (the now deceased) liberal leader Fr.McLaughlin had it. And this happenned around the same time that Quigley was reorganized… all Bernardin’s work.

Remember, the “seminary” in Chicago is not just the major theologate at Mundelein (who calls it by it’s formal name, anyway?) It is a much more extensive system which includes high school, college, and particular houses of formation. So addressing it’s issues usually involved a certain progression in promotions through pecking order, starting at the lower levels and building upward.

I added a minor extra concening “Red” above.

 

[Tom317]

So if he had to “clean it up” (and I agree that this did need work and has received it under his leadership), what does this say about his clear acceptance of Fr. Canary as it’s rector and now vicar general? Canary, of course, became rector of Niles College Seminary in order to rebuild after Red McLaughlin had it. And this happenned around the same time that Quigley was reorganized… all Bernardin’s work.

Remember, the “seminary” in Chicago is not just the major theologate at Mundelein (who calls it by it’s formal name, anyway?) It is a much more extensive system which includes high school, college, and particular houses of formation. So addressing it’s issues usually involved a certain progression in promotions through pecking order, starting at the lower levels and building upward.

Yes, and with Quigley closing the system will suffer. As for Fr. Canary, George might very have been convinced by him.

 

[chicago]

Yes, and with Quigley closing the system will suffer. As for Fr. Canary, George might very have been convinced by him.

Too true.

 

[Tom317]

I added a minor extra concening “Red” above.

Let’s not go to far on this, I said that the seminary clean-up was likely Cardinal George’s best work, I never said it was perfect work.

The problem I feel is important is the matter of getting young men to obey the call to a vocation, and in doing that we MUST have a strong parish life, which brings me full circle to my issues about Chicago parish life. I firmly believe if we had a more robust orthodox parish life, Quigley would not be closed and vocations of young men would be increasing.

You can built the best farm in the world, but it does no good without any cows.

 

[Tom317]

chicago,

Thanks for the fun chat. I will check back in tommorrow. Have a blessed evening.

 

[chicago]

I disagree. In this environment, there is more need to have holy Priests, then it is to worry about where they come from. That being said, it is my understanding that Lincoln has local vocations, not immigrant based, and they also enjoy a very high level of faithful nuns, when compared to other dioceses.

Just a note, by “immigrant” concerning Lincoln, I meant to say those who immigrate to their diocese but not necessarily from other countries.

The point is that if the reason that they have inflated vocational numbers is due to these priests heading there from elsewhere (which is known to be certainly no small part of their equation), then the statistical element of what dioceses are doing well with developing vocations in relation to one another tends to get skewed. The ideal is, afterall, for each diocese to sustain it’s own native population of priests.

 

[chicago]

Let’s not go to far on this, I said that the seminary clean-up was likely Cardinal George’s best work, I never said it was perfect work.

I’m merely noting that he was only building upon what had seemingly already begun by Bernardin and that, while the seminary system certainly had significant problems under the latter, the clean up had already remotely started while he was in office.

The problem I feel is important is the matter of getting young men to obey the call to a vocation, and in doing that we MUST have a strong parish life, which brings me full circle to my issues about Chicago parish life. I firmly believe if we had a more robust orthodox parish life, Quigley would not be closed and vocations of young men would be increasing.

With this I wholeheartedly agree. And, indeed, THAT is where the greatest problems concerning Quigley’s sucesss lie. I only wish that the cardinal and his apologists would have taken it on honestly and called it out for what it is. But, then, this would have taken real courage, led to all kinds of upset parisioners and parish school administrators, and been a sort of self-indictment of his administration’s shortcomings. Much more so than failing to call Mercy Home or Hilary on the carpet ever would be. Too bad there aren’t more calling on him to take responsibility where it could genuinely make some difference in shaking things up.

You can built the best farm in the world, but it does no good without any cows.

As present rector of Quigley, Fr. Peter Snieg, stated in a 2004 article from Seminary Journal

All Quigley needs to be successful in the future is to have its work accepted and supported by those who love God and the church and who recognize the importance of fostering vocations, be they to the priesthood, religious life, diaconate, or lay ministry. Our youth need God, our faith, and a high school like Quigley now more than ever. They are deeply spiritual and they deserve our support to help them understand their spirituality and enable it to grow. If Quigley does not survive these turbulent and trying days for our Catholic faith, it will not be because Quigley has failed in carrying out its mission. It will be because our Catholic community has lost faith in the fact that God’s call for vocations occurs at all ages and that a gracious God works through its members to nurture his call.

Something we have too little of in this great Archdiocese.

 

[Sheeniac]

And most dems (although not all) believe in abortion. The whole state of Illinois is a Democratic State, (I live here, believe me I know) but the last time I looked it is the duty of all Catholics, Clergy included (and you would think especially Clergy ) to oppose those candidates that support abortion. You can’t tell me these priests who headed this organization didn’t know H. Clinton’s stance on abortion.:banghead:

Bite your tongue. The state is much more than Chicago. I live in the Joliet Diocese, but being a recent revert, I don’t have that much to add about the diocese. But in light of Archbishop Burke’s principled stand, I am filled with dismay over the Cardinal’s lack of the same.

However, he may have done a lot before to change things in the diocese. Rome wasn’t built in a day, so hopefully things will start to change.

 

[Andy_K]

Let’s not go to far on this, I said that the seminary clean-up was likely Cardinal George’s best work, I never said it was perfect work.

**The problem I feel is important is the matter of getting young men to obey the call to a vocation, and in doing that we MUST have a strong parish life, which brings me full circle to my issues about Chicago parish life. I firmly believe if we had a more robust orthodox parish life, Quigley would not be closed and vocations of young men would be increasing. **

There is so much veracity to this statement. That being said, Chicago is dead-on about the “immigrant vocation” deal. I completely concur that the number of vocations fostered by an individual diocese is a good standard by which to measure its orthodoxy (that is, it seems the point you are trying to make here?)

 

[Tom317]

Just a note, by “immigrant” concerning Lincoln, I meant to say those who immigrate to their diocese but not necessarily from other countries.

The point is that if the reason that they have inflated vocational numbers is due to these priests heading there from elsewhere (which is known to be certainly no small part of their equation), then the statistical element of what dioceses are doing well with developing vocations in relation to one another tends to get skewed. The ideal is, afterall, for each diocese to sustain it’s own native population of priests.

Well, as I said, it is my understanding that Lincoln has a significant local draw for vocations; however, if Lincoln draws vocations from other areas because of its orthodoxy, then that simply supports my point–orthodoxy leads to vocations.

 

[Tom317]

There is so much veracity to this statement. That being said, Chicago is dead-on about the “immigrant vocation” deal. I completely concur that the number of vocations fostered by an individual diocese is a good standard by which to measure its orthodoxy (that is, it seems the point you are trying to make here?)

Yes.

 

[Tom317]

I’m merely noting that he was only building upon what had seemingly already begun by Bernardin and that, while the seminary system certainly had significant problems under the latter, the clean up had already remotely started while he was in office.

With this I wholeheartedly agree. And, indeed, THAT is where the greatest problems concerning Quigley’s sucesss lie. I only wish that the cardinal and his apologists would have taken it on honestly and called it out for what it is. But, then, this would have taken real courage, led to all kinds of upset parisioners and parish school administrators, and been a sort of self-indictment of his administration’s shortcomings. Much more so than failing to call Mercy Home or Hilary on the carpet ever would be. Too bad there aren’t more calling on him to take responsibility where it could genuinely make some difference in shaking things up.

As present rector of Quigley, Fr. Peter Snieg, stated in a 2004 article from Seminary Journal

Something we have too little of in this great Archdiocese.

Agreed, which is why I make such a strong emphasis on the weak state of our parishes, which is where vocations are truly fostered. When Catholics are no longer “Catholic,” they tend to have 1-2 kids, and then those kids become waaay to precious to them to encourage any sort of vocation, on-and-on…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Catholics vote for baby murdering Jezebel to be Queen of Babylon it will be a sad day indeed!

 

[chicago]

Well, as I said, it is my understanding that Lincoln has a significant local draw for vocations; however, if Lincoln draws vocations from other areas because of its orthodoxy, then that simply supports my point–orthodoxy leads to vocations.

Fair enough.

I’d go one further, however. At a Serra Club luncheon I attended some years back, Cardinal George was asked why some dioceses and religious orders seem to be doing very well with vocations, while others can’t seem to get off the ground. He replied that in his estimation what these who are doing well had as a draw was a clarity of identity. And, with that clear witness and focus, people could understand what they were about unambiguously; with many being drawn to it. Perhaps this sense of understanding what the vocation is and is not, being proud of what it is, and not making any bones about it or hemming and hawing is that which serves the purpose of creating an attraction. In other words, a young man can find a certain nobility in following a path of dedicating his life to SOMETHING, something of worth and value. Absent this, or if things get mucked up and watered down, then what is in it for the man? He might as well find fulfillment elsewhere.

So, does “orthodoxy” attract? Yes. But primarily because in our day and age when the world around us is so confused, can’t find itself, and self-fulfillment is rampant, it stands as a clear contrast for something solid and worthwhile that an idealistic youth can have as a pillar of strength to stand with against the tide that would otherwise sweep him away into the vast ocean with the rest of the floating dead wood.

 

[chicago]

Agreed, which is why I make such a strong emphasis on the weak state of our parishes, which is where vocations are truly fostered. When Catholics are no longer “Catholic,” they tend to have 1-2 kids, and then those kids become waaay to precious to them to encourage any sort of vocation, on-and-on…

So, then, we get back to the $64,000 question, Mr. Cramden"

“Who wrote Swanee River?”

Oh, wait, no… I mean, “What is it that you believe the Cardinal ought to have been doing about this the past ten years? What should he do now? How would your recommendations be practically effective and do more good than harm?”

 

[Tom317]

Fair enough.

I’d go one further, however. At a Serra Club luncheon I attended some years back, Cardinal George was asked why some dioceses and religious orders seem to be doing very well with vocations, while others can’t seem to get off the ground. He replied that in his estimation what these who are doing well had as a draw was a clarity of identity. And, with that clear witness and focus, people could understand what they were about unambiguously; with many being drawn to it. Perhaps this sense of understanding what the vocation is and is not, being proud of what it is, and not making any bones about it or hemming and hawing is that which serves the purpose of creating an attraction. In other words, a young man can find a certain nobility in following a path of dedicating his life to SOMETHING, something of worth and value. Absent this, or if things get mucked up and watered down, then what is in it for the man? He might as well find fulfillment elsewhere.

So, does “orthodoxy” attract? Yes. But primarily because in our day and age when the world around us is so confused, can’t find itself, and self-fulfillment is rampant, it stands as a clear contrast for something solid and worthwhile that an idealistic youth can have as a pillar of strength to stand with against the tide that would otherwise sweep him away into the vast ocean with the rest of the floating dead wood.

I agree.