It's official: Levada is new doctrinal watchdog!

  • Thread starter Thread starter UKcatholicGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jlw:
I just went to lunch and was praying in the car, asking Jesus “what’s the deal here”??

Upon reflection, and my faith in my Pope, I see that it will all be ok.

We have problems with our bishops in America, no?? YES.

So Benedict…
  1. appoints an American. He could have picked George, but he best serves the Church by straining to hold Chicago together (Chicago posters agree???)
  2. a Latino. Does this matter, given the enormous Catholic population of SOUTH America?? Dunno.
  3. Vacates the San Francisco post. AH, yes. Fresh air is needed. I bet he DOES appoint an orthodox priest to the position.
  4. THEORY: Instead of promoting a recognizably orthodox man to the CDF, he appoints possibly a man who is orthodox, but finally given a chance to exercise his theological muscles?? SF is not an easy place to be Catholic or conservative socially. Taking this on faith.
  5. So instead of promoting the orthodox to Rome, (thereby vacating archbishop positions held by good bishops, he might be moving liberal/heterodox OUT of archbishop postions, and replacing them with orthodox/conservatives.
Whatcha think??
Of course I hope you’re correct.

But as some others have already pointed out, we just need to have faith in God and His Holy Spirit that He is leading the Church and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Peter denied Jesus three times, yet he was the first pope! Can you imagine the uproar on this forum if Pope Benedict appointed a man who publicly declared three times that he does not believe in Jesus Christ?!

The point is, God knows what He is doing. He installed Pope Benedict for a reason, and He guided him to appoint Archbishop Levada for a reason. Let’s have a little faith!
 
DustinsDad,

From the article: "…American society could not survive in such a culture of death, nor should it." That is a powerful statement, especially the ending where he says “…nor should it…”

Americans like to think of this nation as the land of the free and the brave, beacon of liberty, etc…yet it is not a terribly free land when we are slaughtering our own babies at a rate of 4,000 per day. Bishop Levada makes a sound argument: “Should we survive?”
 
Not only did he work on the CCC, but he was assigned to the CDF as a priest and has worked with Benedict XVI in both capacities.
Benedict knows this man and selected him for the job. Good enough for me.
Not only Bishop Fessio or Corapi, but how 'bout Cardinal Chaput when McCarrick retires?
 
40.png
Strider:
Not only did he work on the CCC, but he was assigned to the CDF as a priest and has worked with Benedict XVI in both capacities.
Benedict knows this man and selected him for the job. Good enough for me.
Not only Bishop Fessio or Corapi, but how 'bout Cardinal Chaput when McCarrick retires?
Who frightens you more: Mahoney or McCarrick??
 
40.png
jlw:
I just went to lunch and was praying in the car, asking Jesus “what’s the deal here”??

Upon reflection, and my faith in my Pope, I see that it will all be ok.

We have problems with our bishops in America, no?? YES.

So Benedict…
  1. appoints an American. He could have picked George, but he best serves the Church by straining to hold Chicago together (Chicago posters agree???)
Cardinal George inherited a huge mess here in Chicago. While he has cleaned up some things, like sexual predator priests and improving the academics at Mundelein, there are still major problems.

General absolution is still being practiced in some parishes. Liturgical abuses may be down but are still a problem. Most of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient. I don’t know that he’s going to do any more than he has already done. I hope I’m wrong.
 
Swiss Guard said:
Cardinal George inherited a huge mess here in Chicago. While he has cleaned up some things, like sexual predator priests and improving the academics at Mundelein, there are still major problems.

General absolution is still being practiced in some parishes. Liturgical abuses may be down but are still a problem. Most of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient. I don’t know that he’s going to do any more than he has already done. I hope I’m wrong.

That’s what I thought.
 
Here’s a thought Guys…
This could very well be Benedict XVI’s way of showing that he is behind Levada, so that all those who have resisted his correction will now know they are opposing Rome.
 
It is confusing to me that some would post that Archbishop Levada is not an orthodox bishop. In reading his statements and observig his record he seems to be very much a keeper of the Faith. In fact, if memory serves, he was placed in San Francisco specifically because of his orthodoxy. This man has been a consistent target of the gay community in SF and he has held firmly to the teachings of the Church. Those that would accuse him otherwise would do well to cite specific examples.

God bless!
 
40.png
Lurch104:
I think that is rather unfair. An ad hominem comment like that just shows how weak your reasoning is. … But for the sheeple on the forum …
Your right. It does weaken what one says. So why the name calling?

If having loyalty and giving a leader the benefit of the doubt makes one a sheep, then all I can say is, “Baa, baa.”
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
IMO, if Bishop Levada is truly a liberal, then I am at a loss as to why it is good to place him in such a critical position.
This may sound a little off-topic, and please pardon me for being ignorant, but what does “IMO” mean?
 
Catholics for the Common Good is essentially the be all and end all of Faithful Catholic action in San Francisco. There are other tiny groups of nonagenarian pro-lifers, but this group is young, active, big, positive, and effective. Nothing like it existed here before AB Levada’s tenure. It is interesting to note their take:

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – “Catholics for the Common Good congratulates San Francisco Archbishop William Levada on his appointment to the office of Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith,” said Bill May, Chairman of Catholics for the Common Good, a new Catholic Action founded in San Francisco in response to the call of the Pope John Paul II for a new evangelization.

“Archbishop Levada has been courageous in witnessing to truths of our faith and has been very supportive of lay led action engaging the culture with faith and charity. We have appreciated his support and encouragement of Catholics for the Common Good, and have always loved working with him. We will certainly miss him in San Francisco.”

“Archbishop Levada has presided over a See where the Church is deeply opposed, and is frequently openly mocked and abused. Radical secularists’ hostility to basic moral principles, including those of Christianity and natural law, is so prevalent that civil discourse and dialogue is difficult and often non-existent. Rampant intolerance has created an increasingly intimidating atmosphere for Christians and others who have views contrary to a rigid, morally relativist culture.”

“He has shown that he is willing and able to put himself at risk when public opinion is against him, when standing for human rights and truth. He puts his words into action.”

When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of 2004, Archbishop Levada was the only person in San Francisco to stand up and witness to the truth about marriage and the family. No other church leader in the city had the courage to join him; he stood alone.

"His courage motivated Catholics for the Common Good to organize a prayer rally for the protection of marriage, in part to provide support for him and to let the world know that there is a different opinion on marriage and the family in San Francisco,” May said. “As he proclaimed the teachings of the Catholic Church in defense of marriage, the 1,500 faithful Catholics at the rally cheered him like a rock star. There was a feeling of liberation as we joined our Archbishop by standing up for the truth with faith and charity.”

“In January, Archbishop Levada led a walk of nearly 8,000 people standing up to educate women on the harmful health effects of abortion. The 2-mile procession along San Francisco’s waterfront was condemned by a resolution of the San Francisco board of supervisors who fomented hostility and protests against this witness of concern for women and the truth about life.” CCG members Dolores Meehan and Eva Muntean organized this first annual Walk for Life.

*Catholics for the Common Good is a lay movement organized in direct response to the call of Pope John Paul the Great for a new Catholic Action for an evangelization of culture. It is founded on the social teachings of the Catholic Church and addresses concerns related to life, family, freedom and the poor. *

*Source : *amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/05/here_ya_go.html


 
40.png
OpusDei:
It is confusing to me that some would post that Archbishop Levada is not an orthodox bishop. In reading his statements and observig his record he seems to be very much a keeper of the Faith. In fact, if memory serves, he was placed in San Francisco specifically because of his orthodoxy. This man has been a consistent target of the gay community in SF and he has held firmly to the teachings of the Church. Those that would accuse him otherwise would do well to cite specific examples.

God bless!
What he SAID and DID are two different things. I thought I posted 3 specific examples. I agree that he speaks the truth, but his actions are suspect.
  1. Forbade the TLM indult in his diocese
  2. Caved in to the mayor of SF and now the diocese of SF pays for the benefits of homosexual partners.
  3. Protected pedophile priests in both SF and Oregon and went after a whistleblower in SF for shedding light on the abuse.
I have given links to support these assertions. The three issues are objective fact and cannot be debated. To me, these are three big issues (in order of severity least to worst). Maybe not a big deal to you, but they are true. I hope and pray that B16 has a plan, but I am a bit concerned.
 
Other Eric:
Hi tuopaolo!

All I was able to find through Googling was the following:
Eric, what were you looking for? Were you looking just to buttress your position or did you actually do research, seeking the truth in an uninterested fashion? If you had actually done research and had moderate skill with search engines, you’d have been able to find the things a lot of us are concerned about.
Again I ask whether apprehension over his appointment is based upon more than his being the archbishop of San Francisco.
No, it is based on what he did and said as both archbishop of San Francisco and as archbishop of Portland.
A link to anything would be much appreciated.
How about this:

katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=76936

In 1992, he urged Catholic faithful to vote down an anti-gay-rights measure. Two years later, he took a neutral position on a second anti-gay-rights initiative, saying he wanted to focus on defeating an initiative legalizing doctor-assisted suicide, which he characterized as “murder in the name of mercy.”

Urging the faithful to vote down a pro-family, anti-homosexual “rights” measure does not seem like a good sign and taking a position of “not supporting” a similar measure is equally not a good sign.
 
40.png
Strider:
Not only did he work on the CCC
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was responsible wholly or partly for the things regarding homosexuality which had to be corrected/modified in the 2nd edition of the CCC.
 
40.png
Lurch104:
What he SAID and DID are two different things. I thought I posted 3 specific examples. I agree that he speaks the truth, but his actions are suspect.
  1. Forbade the TLM indult in his diocese
  2. Caved in to the mayor of SF and now the diocese of SF pays for the benefits of homosexual partners.
  3. Protected pedophile priests in both SF and Oregon and went after a whistleblower in SF for shedding light on the abuse.
I have given links to support these assertions. The three issues are objective fact and cannot be debated. To me, these are three big issues (in order of severity least to worst). Maybe not a big deal to you, but they are true. I hope and pray that B16 has a plan, but I am a bit concerned.
  1. Refusing the indult is a pastoral decision. It could be argued that the indult only serve to divide the few orthodox Catholics in the diocese from the mostly heterodox majority.
2, 3. Seems that these are actions of someone who is unwilling to say no to his legal staff.

For CDF, the Holy Father needs someone who will present to him a differing point of view. Appointing a “yes man” is not wise, especially when all final authority lies with BXVI.
 
Reading the posts on this board I have come to the conclusion that ,no matter what comes from the Vatican, it will be viewed as:By the RadTrads: To the left of Stalin
By the Mod Squad: To the right of Attilla the Hun

PF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top