C
chicago
Guest
Well, if we could just deport her to be enthroned there, this might not be such a bad thing.
- Status
T
Tom317
Guest
The Church in Chcago (and elsewhere) has been dying slowly because at the parish level the weeds are choking off oxygen. IMO, every diocese needs to separate the wheat from the chaffe and take their licks. I feel it is better to have a smaller Chrurch, yet more faithful, then to keep fooling ourselves into insignificance. Taking these analogies a bit further, when a lawn is filled with weeds, the grass slowly starts getting choked out, clear the weeds and the lawn at first looks spotty, but will soon come back to full deep glory. The same would happen in Chicago if the weeds are cut outâŚmany of the faithful would at first feel confused (some, perhaps many, would leave), but in a fairly quick time you would see parishes glowing with the glory of Christ and they would grow rapidly in terms of numbers and holiness.
I feel it is unfair to the faithful to not insist that the fullness of truth be given in every parish, it is robbing them of the very gifts that God intended them to have.
C
chicago
Guest
Alright, so while I may agree up to a point in priinciple about the advisability of giving everyone the fullness of truth, and whereas Iâll simply note that some would agree and others would disagree about âseparating the wheat from the chaffâ (which gets into another whole conversation as to whoâs to be considered which); I still must press on for specifics. How would you practically advise that the archbishop go about this in a very real way? What would the likely consequences of those actions be? How would you advise that he deal with managing these consequences? Would your plan be effective in the long run? Would it create a greater overall good or just throw things into utter chaos? Would your proposals be implemented or ignored (were you archbishop) In other words, letâs get real and talk in something more than theory or ideals. So letâs roleplay. Hereâ's youâre hat and stick, have at it, youâre eminance!
S
Sheeniac
Guest
I donât disagree. Some people are so borderline thoughâŚso where does that leave us in terms of charity (love) and in getting people in so that the Holy Spirit will soften their lukewarm hearts?
T
Tom317
Guest
It would be effective in the long run. There would be chaos and it would take great courage to implement.
C
chicago
Guest
Iâll take it one step further. Letâs say that the âwheatâ is effectively seperated from the âchaffâ. So, we are now dealing in the Church only with the subset âwâ. Now, among this crowd, there will certainly be divisions. There will be those who believe that they are the true wheat and that others among their membership arenât truly dedicated to the faith. Out they must go, also. Or, perhaps there will be splinters. And we end up grouped into all kinds of denominations, just like the Protestants. People will even be able to go shopping for a group that they consider to be the âtrue Churchâ. Naturally, there will be controversy as to whoâs a legitimate bishop and priest with authentic sacredotal orders.
So, this separation bit sounds all nice and good. But, really, where would it lead if implemented? To greater unity in faith, truth, and charity? Or to unlimited division?
This is the struggle with which every bishop must try to find some way to manage wisely. Which is why I would not wish the episcopate on any man.
T
Tom317
Guest
The actions of the leaders need to change, even if they do not fully agree, then the faithful will learn and follow.
C
chicago
Guest
What is it? You have yet to define specifics as to HOW you would go about âitâ. Really, youâre merely posturing about a pleasant pipe dream without any sort of proposed practical plan which we can evaluate. And, at best, youâre hoping for an ideal outcome, which isnât all that likely in a sinful world.
C
chicago
Guest
Ok, so propose an actual plan of actions, then.
I installed you as bishop here a few posts back and yet all youâre doing is talking in generalities of platitude like they mostly do. Already, youâre fitting right in with the rest of our heirarchy⌠no different than the rest of those whom you criticize.
T
Tom317
Guest
Oh stop. I am not particularly comfortable with this conversation. On one had I know Chicago needs help, on the other had I have great love and respect for Cardinal George and the clergy in general. It is never easy to be critical of a person God has allowed to be ordained, they carry gifts and charisms that lay Catholics will never haveâŚso please excuse me if I do not feel joy about giving the Cardinal advice over the internet.
C
chicago
Guest
While Iâm certain of your sincerity, youâre speaking lots of doubletalk. On the one hand, you say that he hasnât done his job particularly well, youâve challenged his degree of orthodoxy - or at least enforcement of ortho-praxis, and said that he needs to separate the wheat from the chaff - in a plan which will âsurely workâ. And, yet, youâre utterly unwilling to offer specifics. In the end, then, youâre really just sitting by the sidelines stoning him, with no real offer of real suggestions for genuine progress in any effective manner. Rather, when challenged to offer something more, something concrete, which can be put to the test, you retreat into blowing all kinds of loving kisses his way and say that he has gifts that you donât have access to and therefore canât offer anything. Well, which is it? Does he have a special grace for governance which ought to be respected? Or is he wrong, wrong wrong? And if heâs even only wrong, wrong, then where and why and how can he practically go about addressing this in a positive manner - other than trusting upon the gifts which he apparently doesnât employ rightly, anyway?
Really, this seems to be the problem in a lot of these cases (and why bishops dismiss complainers). People like to gripe and whine about how he doesnât come up to their ideal platitude, but they offer no worthwhile practical advise or suggestions in turn, which can themselves be tried, critiqued, or put to the test along with the necessary taking of responsibility for judgement before God as to their worth and value in bringing people back to Him. No one really wants to wear the pectoral cross, then, when it comes right down to it. They typically just want the pulpit (or should I say the chair?)
T
Tom317
Guest
Okay, thanks.
I have no problem with sharing my views of what should be done or even what can be done. I am just not certain that it is fair for me to be posting such things on a public forum. Do not take me lightly, I have done much and will continue to do so, but there is a proper place for developing plans, and this is NOT the place. People reading these messages can resort to all sorts of unfair behaivors and I just do not want to be part of that. If you cannot understand that, then I am sorry.
He has special gifts that I do not have, and yes he is fully capable of being wrong.
You know, it is one thing to discuss general problems about any diocese, it is quite another thing to start posting action plans.
C
chicago
Guest
I donât think it is fair to do one (general critique) without offering the other (action plans). Indeed, in failing to offer something positive, weâre doing more harm than good when we tear down and damn (so to speak) everything which is wrong.
And I also donât believe that anything needs to be said, necessarily, on a message board, which would personally implicate a person, a parish, or what have you. Simply share thoughts as to some things which ought to be done as a positive corrective which can, then, be discussed in a healthy exchange. Simplistic statements (which not only you have employed but that are commonly used by many, especially on a message board like this) such as âseperate the wheat from the chaffâ do no good and say nothing, ultimately. What does it mean in practice? How can this be accomplished? No one ever makes much in the way of real policy or action plan recommendations. At best they say, âWell, remove that pastor!â And, this, without understanding canonical challenges to such a thing.
Certainly, there is a time and a place for everything. And, possibly, this is neither the time nor the place for very specific details. (Though enabling your private message or email abilities could help to get it off forum.) Yet, I see no reason why more specific, yet still somewhat generalized, suggestions can not be put forward. Afterall, if youâre going to critique, then get right down to it and offer something of worth as to how and where you think things can go.
That goes for everyone who wants to engage in a conversation like this. I appreciate you continuing it in a worthwhile and healty manner here. Many would not. But I think that what Iâm getting at here applies more generally, also. Itâs very easy to whine about Hilary this, a university that, some liturgical inappropriatness the other place. And, oh gee, why doesnât the bishop DO something. Well, ok, what should he do? How? Put something forward and let us tear the idea apart just like everyone is doing with the actions or inactions that they feel so free to critique or condemn, themselves. Then maybe weâll actually be getting somewhere and not just blowing hot air around.
T
Tom317
Guest
Let me chew on this for a while and make choice if I want to discuss further. Until then, thank you.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
Is Cardinal George even back on his feet yet? I thought he broke a hip recently. Between that, and cancer surgery, and polio, I thought he was really in quite a grim state these days. I would cut him a break.
C
chicago
Guest
It would appear heâs been pretty active, generally. His announced schedule certainly has him getting around, it would seem. Heâs scheduled to celebrate a 10th anniversary as archbishop Mass later today at the cathedral. Before that he was keeping up a briskness about town and had even planned a trip to Rome (until he fell). Heâs a tough old German kid, that Chicagoan, he is!
H
Holly3278
Guest
Can you blame them? Hillary is so liberal and supports all the liberal âvaluesâ that it isnât even funny. Iâd probably be outraged by a speech of hers as well.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Why doesnât the bishop of Chicago just come out and say that anyone who votes for Hilary Clinton or for any candidate that supports abortion materially cooperates with evil and Satan the author or evil and if Catholic excommunicates themself from the Catholic Church?
Would Chicago Catholics listen to a bishop that would say something like that?
Would Chicago Catholics listen to a bishop that would say something like that?
A
Andy_K
Guest
That is, essentially, what is being asked in this thread; why DOESNâT Cardinal George denounce this event and admonish this Catholic institution in question?
We have speculated several different scenarios, them being:
- The Cardinal is using his pastoral judgment to justify not publicly admonishing Mercy home due to a combination of factors, including but not limited to:
a) the fact that Mercy Home in reality DOES NOT desire Hilary to speak, and is only doing so because some affiliation it has acquired through this event is actually behind Hilaryâs invite; in such a case, it has been proposed, publicly denouncing this would be silly because it only brings harm and potentially scandal to the Catholic institution in question, which in reality is innocent of such a crime;
b) employing âye olde abortion admonishmentâ will only serve to alienate the more liberal/unorthodox parishioners, who have already heard this time and time again and refuse to listen (in other words, the answer to your question is âNo.â Also, I realize that some - okay, many - would argue that igniting the wrath of the more liberal Catholics might be a good thing. For now, we can consider this as a possible pretense for the Cardinalâs action, er, lack of action, per se).
- The possibility of blackmail, which has only receieved passing mention (nevermind consideration) on this thread so far, but is a possibility nonetheless, no matter how much it rings of âconspiracy theoryâ trappings and silly rumor.
- The possiblilty that Cardinal George is something of a liberal (this has been quickly refuted for obvious reasons).
Back on topic?
B
bones_IV
Guest
The Republican and Democrat parties are mirror images of each other.
- Status