"I do wish Cardinal George would do something about Andrew Greeley".

[kmktexas]

Fitz:

I know from personal experience (several years ago) that Fr. Greeley is still saying mass. I hear from others that he is still helping out at a parish now. I never heard that he was restricted. I know he might not be officially assigned but he is saying mass in public.

So, in answer to the original question, what should Cardinal George do?

He should make it clear that Fr. Greely is resticted from offering public Masses. He should further restrict him from giving homilies (or reflections) at Masses in his Diocese and from hearing Confessions (except when in danger of death). Both of those activities are far more dangerous than his offering Mass. Also, those activities require that Father Greely have permission from the Cardinal to act in his diocese.

Unless a priest is living in seclusion, I believe that such restictions should always be made public. The danger to the faithful is too great to risk someone unwittingly believing him to be in full good standing.

 

[Fitz]

kmktexas:

The danger to the faithful is too great to risk someone unwittingly believing him to be in full good standing.

You are aware of his weekly newspaper columns? He is very public. If he has had restrictions no one would be the wiser. I have started threads about him before. He is frustrating on many levels.

 

[Shoshana]

And Fr Greeley for who he is and what he gets away with gets nothing where Fr Gruner who isfaithful priest in every respect…other than his Fatima thing…is publicly denounced!

Go figure…

BTW, this is only a remark in passing. I am confused how Andrew gets off of anything, the pedophiles get covered up and Gruner gests ostracized…

Maybe someone can clear this for me…

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[chicago]

How about when Cardinal Bernadin came out and said the Gospel of St. John needs to be changed because it’s anti-Semitic??? Do you call this obedience to the Magisterium?

---

How about Cardinal Bernadin saying on TV that we will have women priests in 10 years back in 1994 when John Paul II came out with his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? This is obedience???

---

He may have expressed his concerns or opinions on certain matters such as this, but that doesn’t qualify as objecting to the teachings of the Church and failing to teach in fidelity with them.

Let’s not forget Cardinal Bernadin also authorized the use of altar girls long before approval came from Rome. Cardinal Bernadin may have been many things, but faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium is not one of them.

---

And Rome later clarified that those who used this practice, even before they formally said it was ok, were within their rights under a proper interpretation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

As for the type of archbishop I thought we were getting, I thought we would have someone like Bishop Bruskewitz whose actions would back up his words. Cardinal George is an excellent teacher of the faith, but some of his actions have disappointed me.

Thinking that we would get someone like Fabian Bruskiewitz is not only wishful but foolish thinking. His style would have been a horrible fit and failure in a place like Chicago.

 

[chicago]

kmktexas:

He should make it clear that Fr. Greely is resticted from offering public Masses. He should further restrict him from giving homilies (or reflections) at Masses in his Diocese and from hearing Confessions (except when in danger of death). Both of those activities are far more dangerous than his offering Mass. Also, those activities require that Father Greely have permission from the Cardinal to act in his diocese.

Fr. Greeley offers a Friday reflection on the Catholic radio station during the local hour produced by the Archdiocese. He was also on a panel along with Cardinal George at the major Archdiocesan conference “Festival of Faith” two years ago, reflecting on growing up Catholic in Chicago.

 

[fix]

chicago:

He may have expressed his concerns or opinions on certain matters such as this, but that doesn’t qualify as objecting to the teachings of the Church and failing to teach in fidelity with them.

You mean like so many who attempt to combine truth with error, while never publicly denying the truth? An age old technique.

And Rome later clarified that those who used this practice, even before they formally said it was ok, were within their rights under a proper interpretation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Yes, dissenters rebel and Rome normalizes the rebellion. Another old technique of the left.

Thinking that we would get someone like Fabian Bruskiewitz is not only wishful but foolish thinking. His style would have been a horrible fit and failure in a place like Chicago.

Failure? When is the uncompromising truth a failure?

 

[chicago]

I think the better question is “What should I do about Fr. Greeley if he upsets me?” To which I would answer, “Ignore him and keep your peace.” Yes, he is frustrating to some. But, realistically, he isn’t going to stop talking and wouldn’t even if the Cardinal tried to squelch him. He publically stated before Cardinal George was appointed that if we got a hardliner bishop he would just run off to another diocese. Getting up in arms about what the bishop should do, then, only serves to frustrate oneself more. Greeley is an old man. He’ll be dead in not too many more years. He actually has served the Church well in some capacities, even if he is full of himself and gone off the deep in others. But there is likely no controling him, and any effort to try will probably just bring him more attention and sympathy than he already has.

 

[fix]

chicago:

I But there is likely no controling him, and any effort to try will probably just bring him more attention and sympathy than he already has.

See, this is the strange reasoning I hear all the time which perplexes me. It seems the answer to hetrodoxy is to ignore it? How can one ignore cancer? It does not work, it spreads through out the body and kills. The answer may be surgical excsion.

 

[space_ghost]

IMHO…

 

[chicago]

fix:

See, this is the strange reasoning I hear all the time which perplexes me. It seems the answer to hetrodoxy is to ignore it? How can one ignore cancer? It does not work, it spreads through out the body and kills. The answer may be surgical excsion.

Well, for one, I think that insinuating Fr. Greeley’s positions are necessarily cancerous might be a bit of an overstatement. Distasteful to some, yes. Taken to an extreme at times. Sure. But he’s not a formal heretic or anything. Basically, he has written some racy books, engaged in promoting Democratic politics, and pushed serious thinking about ideas - frequently, though not always and necessarily, with a liberal bent. That isn’t necessarily all bad in the final equation, even if certain elements might be problematic.

But, in the larger scheme, one must ask if the proposed “treatment” will be effective in counteracting the problem, or if it will just exacerbate it. Sometimes the best course of action is merely to focus on what good can be done elsewhere and let the cancerous element come to it’s ultimate end on it’s own. It may, then, be much more effective to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

chicago:

He may have expressed his concerns or opinions on certain matters such as this, but that doesn’t qualify as objecting to the teachings of the Church and failing to teach in fidelity with them.

archives.archchicago.org/JCBpdfs/JCBatantisemitismhebrewu.pdf
The above link has Cardinal Bernardin’s entire speech at Hebrew University on March 23, 1995. It’s in pdf format, so it may take a while to download. On page 13, Bernardin qoutes Fr. Raymond Brown on the Gospel of St. John being anti-semitic. Bernardin himself says there should be re-translation and re-interpretation of the Gospel. He claims that St. John had Jesus refer to Jews as "children of the devil."

This is not just an opinion. He is saying we need to re-interpret the Gospel of St. John, as if the Magisterium got it wrong for 2,000 years. If you consider this fidelity to the Magisterium, you consider Call to Action to be orthodox.

chicago:

And Rome later clarified that those who used this practice, even before they formally said it was ok, were within their rights under a proper interpretation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Please provide the document or lead me to where I can find the document because I am not aware Rome said any such thing, unless it was after the fact. I’m not aware the 1983 Code of Canon Law gives a bishop permission to be disobedient to the Holy See.

chicago:

Thinking that we would get someone like Fabian Bruskiewitz is not only wishful but foolish thinking. His style would have been a horrible fit and failure in a place like Chicago.

I agree that it is wishful and foolish to think we would get someone like Bruskiewitz here in Chicago. Most of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient to the Holy See. Go to Mass at just about any parish and you’ll see different degrees of liturgical abuse. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part you will find abuses. I would estimate about 75-80% of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient to the Holy See. Very few will come out and explicitly say it, but, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

---

The only people who think Bruskiewitz would be a failure are those who aren’t faithful to Catholic teaching and disobedient to the Holy See. Orthodox Catholics would see it as a success if the disobedient priests were put in their place. I’m tired of disobedient priests throwing temper tantrums every time they don’t get their way. As Bishop Joseph Perry suggested to Fr. Michael Pflegler when he threw one of his many temper tantrums, go start your own church. I say let the disobedient priests leave, they’re Catholic in name only anyways.

 

[TPJCatholic]

swiss,

It is a sad state in Chicago and I am not at all sure why Cardinal George is not just a bit more agreesive…I guess it is just not in his style. The state of liturgical abuses across many Churches is what caused me to start going to Mass in the Rockford Diocese

 

[chicago]

archives.archchicago.org/JCBpdfs/JCBatantisemitismhebrewu.pdf
The above link has Cardinal Bernardin’s entire speech at Hebrew University on March 23, 1995. It’s in pdf format, so it may take a while to download. On page 13, Bernardin qoutes Fr. Raymond Brown on the Gospel of St. John being anti-semitic. Bernardin himself says there should be re-translation and re-interpretation of the Gospel. He claims that St. John had Jesus refer to Jews as "children of the devil."

This is not just an opinion. He is saying we need to re-interpret the Gospel of St. John, as if the Magisterium got it wrong for 2,000 years. If you consider this fidelity to the Magisterium, you consider Call to Action to be orthodox.

Well, while I do not consider CTA to be orthodox (not Metra for that matter), I do beleive that Bernardin was merely expressing his opinion on how the matter ought to be handled in contemporary times. He may have been right or wrong, inspired or misguided in his view. But it was, nonethelss, just a theological opinion on his part not unlike the kind of discussions which have been proferred throughout time concerning theological matters.

Please provide the document or lead me to where I can find the document because I am not aware Rome said any such thing, unless it was after the fact. I’m not aware the 1983 Code of Canon Law gives a bishop permission to be disobedient to the Holy See.

The clarificiation states:

In an official letter, dated 15 March 1994 and addressed to the presidents of episcopal conferences, Cardinal Antonio M. Javierre Ortas, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, announced an authentic interpretation of Canon 230.2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and provided instructions for the implementation of this interpretation. The Holy See did not publish this letter immediately, but its text was received by the Catholic News Service of the United States Catholic Conference and published on 12 April 1994. The full text of the authentic interpretation of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts and the text of the four directives sent out by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments were subsequently published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis under the date of 6*June 1994.

******* Canon*230.2 reads as follows: “Lay persons (laici) by temporary deputation may fulfil the function of lector during liturgical services; likewise all lay persons (laici) may carry out the functions of commentator and cantor or other functions in accordance with the norm of law.”

******* On 30 June 1992, the members of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts pronounced on the following question that had been raised: “Whether, among the liturgical functions that lay persons, men or women, may exercise according to Canon*230.2 of the Code of Canon Law, may also be included service at the altar (servitium ad altare).” The answer given was:

“Yes, and in accordance with instructions to be given by the Apostolic See.”

******* The answer of the Pontifical Council was confirmed on 11July 1992 by Pope John PaulII, who also ordered its publication.

******* Cardinal Javierre Ortas, in conveying this information, presents also the following instructions:

1. Canon*230.2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character: “laici … possunt´." ("lay persons ... may´.”) Hence the permission given in this regard by some bishops can in no way be considered as binding on other bishops. In fact, it is the competence of each bishop, in his diocese, after hearing the opinion of the episcopal conference, to make a prudential judgment on what to do, with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in his own diocese.

1. The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon230.2. At the same time, however, the HolySee wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has also led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.

(continued)

 

[chicago]

1. If in some diocese, on the basis of Canon230.2, the bishop permits that, for particular reasons, women may also serve at the altar, this decision must be clearly explained to the faithful in the light of the above-mentioned norm. It shall also be made clear that the norm is already being widely applied, by the fact that women frequently serve as lectors in the liturgy and may also be called upon to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and to carry out other functions, according to the provisions of the same Canon230.2.
2. It must also be clearly understood that the liturgical services mentioned above are carried out by lay people “ex temporanea deputatione” (“by temporary deputation”), according to the judgment of the bishop, without lay people, be they men or women, having any right to exercise them.

******* In communicating the above, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sought to carry out the mandate received from the Supreme Pontiff to provide directives to illustrate what is laid down in Canon*230.2 of the Code of Canon Law and its authentic interpretation, which will shortly be published.

******* In this way the bishops will be better able to carry out their mission to be moderators and promoters of liturgical life in their own diocese, within the framework of the norms in force in the universal Church.

I suppose that varying viewpoints would make differing arguments as to whether this clarification indicates that the allowances of altar girls was correct before the issuance of the message but following the 1983 Code was legitimate. The prevailing opinion at the time in 1994, as I recall, was that the Vatican’s recognition of the allowances already being practiced in various dioceses, together with an understanding of the present legislative interpretation, was a tacit acknowledgment of it’s legitimacy.

It would seem that Cardinal Bernardin did the same as the Vatican chose to do in this situation, ie. to honestly recognize what was already happening at a local level and how this was permissible not only as a practical means, but under the 1983 Code, therefore formally extending the priviledge.

I agree that it is wishful and foolish to think we would get someone like Bruskiewitz here in Chicago. Most of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient to the Holy See.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement.

Go to Mass at just about any parish and you’ll see different degrees of liturgical abuse. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part you will find abuses. I would estimate about 75-80% of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient to the Holy See. Very few will come out and explicitly say it, but, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

If one wants to nitpick, it would not be difficult to find something to convict even the most faithful of priests upon.

---

The only people who think Bruskiewitz would be a failure are those who aren’t faithful to Catholic teaching and disobedient to the Holy See. Orthodox Catholics would see it as a success if the disobedient priests were put in their place. I’m tired of disobedient priests throwing temper tantrums every time they don’t get their way. As Bishop Joseph Perry suggested to Fr. Michael Pflegler when he threw one of his many temper tantrums, go start your own church. I say let the disobedient priests leave, they’re Catholic in name only anyways.

Well, if one’s agenda is to somehow idelistically (and unrealistically) uneqivocally remove all the tares before the harvest, then indeed they will never be pleased. But that isn’t the Catholic Church we are called to be members of… it is a figment of the imagination. And no one, not even Bruskiewitz, would be very sucessful at it. Let alone at effectively evangelizing the culture in dialogue with the concrete circumstances.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Chicago,

There are lot of things happening in Chicago Churches that are well beyond the “nitpick” level.

 

[chicago]

TPJCatholic:

Chicago,

There are lot of things happening in Chicago Churches that are well beyond the “nitpick” level.

Given. And sometimes quite serious problems, indeed.

But going to the other extreme of suggesting that 75-80% of Chicago priests are disobedient to the Holy See isn’t quite the right route, either. I’m simply suggesting that a little balance be excercized in our critique.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Chicago,

I agree completely–balance and unity of life if the key–in all areas.

I do think there is likely a disproportionate number of parish Pastors who seem to like to do things their own way.

 

[chicago]

TPJCatholic:

Chicago,

I agree completely–balance and unity of life if the key–in all areas.

I do think there is likely a disproportionate number of parish Pastors who seem to like to do things their own way.

I do think that the number is generally decreasing, however. The really disobedient pastors who want to do things their own way are the aging ones in the Chicago Pastors Union (or whatever they technically call it… Association of Catholic Pastors or something like that). And even all of the members of that aren’t necessarily disobedient, some of it is politics.

Cardinal George seems to be making a concerted effort to put men in charge of parishes (when he is able to within the normal couse of things, typically) who strive to generally be orthodox. And the younger priests seem to be more no-nonsense.

Certainly, if we wanted to play liturgical cop, it would not be difficult to find something askew in a lot of places. Though, even there, I think that we might need to consider the circumstances in context. For instance, is the priest allowing some minor accomodations to keep peace. Is he just a little lax? Is the “abuse” relatively minor? Is the problem noted a regular occurance or a one time thing that day?

I think we need to take the human element into context and recognize that in an imperfect Church of imperfect human beings, there will at times be impecfections. That’s just life.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Chicago,

I agree, the Church is made-up of humans. I do feel there can be a bit more meat placed behind Church teachings, with a little less credence given to being PC.

 

[FiremanFrank]

TO:

TPJCatholic
Swiss Guard
fix

**You Peep’s Are My Heroes! Yeah man! :clapping: **

And to chicago. Hmmm, what to say.

Well, if what my mom told was right - that if you can’t say anything nice about someone, then you shouldn’t say anything at all … (silence)

And as far as Bishop Bruskiewitz and his “style” are concerned, I sincerely believe that God would desire it that each bishop should either stand up and teach the Truth - or just sit down and shut up.

At least that way, they’re not doing as much harm to the faithful …

Interesting Note Here Folks

When I placed my mouse over chicago’s post (below) while I was responding in the "reply" area:

Today 03:53 PM

chicago
I think the better question is “What should I do about Fr. Greeley if he upsets me?” To which I would answer, "Ignore him …

As it does in all the posts when you’re in that section - a small pop up appears which shows which number it is that any individual post is assigned.

And that above post of chicago’s is ***Post # 666666 ***

(I kid you not)

Just FYI !

**And have a nice day … **