Enforcing the Redemptionis Sacramentum

[boatbearer]

You did, he’s putting +Gomez in charge instead

You’re wrong again. Cardinal Mahony is still the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

 

[Brendan]

You’re wrong again. Cardinal Mahony is still the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

Note the verb tense I used. It wasn’t past tense (as in the ‘to put’ had already happened), it was future\continuing, as it the ‘to put’ is under way

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s doubtful that he requested it, in the sense that he initiated the whole proceeding.

On two counts. First of all, all the other recent US Cardinals served well past their 75th birthday. Cardinal Maida’s resignation letter was finally accepted just shy of his 79th birthday.

Cardinal McCarrick was 78. Cardinal Egan was 77 (and even then, it was due to his heart condition that he requested his resignation be acted upon).

Does not matter if they continued to serve, they still submitted their resignations on their 75th birthday.

Even if a Coadjuator was desired, why is it happening right at his 75th birthday. If the Vatican is pleased with a bishops performance, and the bishop is of good health, they are generally asked to stay on. But this was not the case for +Mahony.

It happened close to a year before his 75th birthday and I see the reasoning as stated, that the Cardinal (and I am sure that the Vatican agreed) wanted the next archbishop to be able to hit the ground running rather than have a time period of working into the position.

Anyways, any speculation other than what has been said by the Cardinal and the Vatican borders on gossip.

 

[boatbearer]

…I would, for the time being, like to move on to how we can respectfully enforce RS at the Parish Level.

Pax!

The first step is to pray for your parish, your diocese and the Church in an unceasing manner.

The next thing is to stop wasting our pastor’s/bishop’s time altogether on non-issues like holding hands, use of orans, female servers, CIH, etc. etc.

Next I think there needs to be an ordering of the problems. Tackle the most important ones first.

There also needs to be a real understanding of the local situation. I believe pouring of the Precious Blood (for example) is an extremely important issue for a few reasons – danger of profaning the Precious Blood NOT being the primary one. However if I worshiped in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles it’s clear my time would be wasted if I focused on this issue given the local situation and people need to realize that.

From there people need to get hands-on. Build-up a report with your pastor and possibly even your bishop. Get involved with your liturgy committee. If your pastor does not head it, put in the time and effort to make sure he does or that it’s eventually shut down. Become a reader or an altar server or an EMHC and work for change from the inside rather than the sidelines.

Be positive. Your pastor is probably tired of hearing gossip and negativity.

NB: I think one of the problems hurting parishes today is that people run off and hide or they stand on the sidelines with their judgments (basking in what they believe to be righteous indignation) rather than getting involved. They’ll claim that they will only add to the problem or give tacit approval if (for example) they become EMsHC. In reality their pride is keeping them from getting involved (even if it’s very distasteful at first) where they can effect real change.
**
In the end it boils down to a lot of prayer, a lot of work, a lot of sacrifice (facing some very difficult situations for example) and the ability through God’s Grace to work with others.**

It’s not easy, but real change (and compliance) can be realized but it takes a heckuva lot more than pouring over Church documents and writing stinging letters…

 

[boatbearer]

It’s doubtful that he requested it, in the sense that he initiated the whole proceeding.

On two counts. First of all, all the other recent US Cardinals served well past their 75th birthday. Cardinal Maida’s resignation letter was finally accepted just shy of his 79th birthday.

Cardinal McCarrick was 78. Cardinal Egan was 77 (and even then, it was due to his heart condition that he requested his resignation be acted upon).

Even if a Coadjuator was desired, why is it happening right at his 75th birthday. If the Vatican is pleased with a bishops performance, and the bishop is of good health, they are generally asked to stay on. But this was not the case for +Mahony.

If the Vatican was just as pleased with +Mahony as they were with Cardinals Maida, Egan and McCarrick then this conversation should not be happening for another 2-3 years.

Secondly, Tom Peters ( AmericanPapist) ‘broke’ the news about a Co-Adujator coming to LA back in January. At the time, the LA Chancellory denied it. The Chancellory decried it a “mere speculation coming from someone 3500 miles away”

It would certainly have been ‘in the works’, but if the Cardinal himself requested it, why deny it when asked about it. Why not simply say “Yes, the Cardinal himself requested one”

It is likely that he was informed that his resignation would be accepted upon his 75th birthday, and THEN requested a coadjutator.

This does give the ‘advantage’ that he would then have some (name removed by moderator)ut into his chosen replacement, something that would not occur otherwise.

In the case of a co-adjutator, the Vatican produces a list of replacements, and the current ordinary can provide (name removed by moderator)ut as to which of those men is chosen. Of course, the final determination is always the Vatican’s

I know for a fact that Cardinal Mahony expressed his ardent desire to retire on or near his 75th birthday more than 2 years ago. That’s understandable as being the Archbishop of LA is a true meat grinder. The Holy See made no judgment of the cardinal by granting his request which you are trying to do right now.

 

[Brendan]

Does not matter if they continued to serve, they still submitted their resignations on their 75th birthday.

Yes, but the Holy See chose to keep them in place for years afterward. This was not the case of L.A.

It happened close to a year before his 75th birthday and I see the reasoning as stated, that the Cardinal (and I am sure that the Vatican agreed) wanted the next archbishop to be able to hit the ground running rather than have a time period of working into the position.

Yes, but why did they deny it to the press in January. Would not have it been a good idea to tell people that the Cardinal was simply taking steps to insure a smooth transition?

Anyways, any speculation other than what has been said by the Cardinal and the Vatican borders on gossip.

Or a valid use of reason