It's official: Levada is new doctrinal watchdog!

[JW10631]

Based on what I have read about Bishop Levada, I think there could have been a better candidate. I do not live in San Francisco. I know how much the popular culture there is hostile to the teachings of the Church. The allegations of the priest abuses trouble me.

 

[sweetchuck]

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??

BURKE TO SAN FRANCISCO!!! (one can only hope! I might have to do a happy dance.)

Seriously though, I love Burke and I’m glad he’s an archbishop in St. Louis, but I think he needs to be in a place where he can more forcefully bring the ruckus, i.e., San Fran.

 

[chicago]

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.

Cardinal Bernardin tried to “lay down the law” and stop general absolution. The pastors threatened to hand him the keys to their parishes, leave the faithful entirely unattended to, and essentially force a major schism. Cardinal George has simply been waiting out the pastors who insist upon the practice, refusing to assign newly ordained priests to their parishes, appointing pastors who will correct things when the old pastors terms run out, and such. There HAS been improvement. I would not be so quick as to make the broad statement that “most of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient”. That really is a slam against far too many of the good priests who don’t get (or seek) attention, but go about their tasks faithfully. Certainly, there is a fair amount of problematic elements (mostly aging), but they shouldn’t necessarily define the whole of the situation.

 

[chicago]

1) appoints an American. He could have picked George, but he best serves the Church by straining to hold Chicago together (Chicago posters agree???)

I think that Chicago would have gotten along just fine had he gone off to Rome. It’s my opinion that Aux. Bishop Paprocki would have been promoted to Archbishop. He’s well respected by both the liberal and conservative elements to the point that order would have been maintained.

 

[chicago]

A few more observations:

The head of CDF is primarily an administrative position. The pope can hold as little or as much control over it as he likes. And, of course, upon the death of the pope, the heads of the dicastries have to give up their offices, anyway, with a successor pope not required to re-appoint them to the same. Cardinal Ratzinger held the office for an extended period of time and this gave him a certain pulpit of his own. But that does not mean that Levada will do the same.

Obviously, Levada is well respected in Rome and personally known to the pope. I think that they understand fully what they are getting into. Further, one must respect the reality that the mind of the Vatican isn’t equal to that of the American conservative.

Perhaps what this situation illustrates more than anything is that while there are some bishops who get “picked on” as being not one’s preferred form of ideal, our opinion of them is often largely shaped by the cirucmstances in which they find themselves. If Pope Benedict was previously Archbishop of New York or Boston, for instance, one wonders whether all kinds of people on the right would not have lambasted him for this reason or that, finding perceived weaknesses.

I suppose that Father Fessio is a potential candidate for some sort of Church position due to his being known personally to the pope. But I would not hold my breath about him becoming the next Archbishop of San Francisco. That position will much more likely go to a bishop or auxilarilry bishop from another diocese. It would be highly unusualy for a mere priest to rise immediately to the rank of Archbishop. There’s usually a pecking order. Suggestions of Fr. Corapi are nothing more than wishful thinking. In any case, I wouldn’t expect all that much different out of any successor to the throne of San Francisco than what was had from Archbishop Levada.

 

[chicago]

from nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word051305.htm

On May 13, as had long been rumored, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco as the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Why Levada?

First, he has a solid theological background. He wrote his doctoral thesis in theology at Rome’s Gregorian University under the direction of Jesuit Fr. Francis Sullivan, widely regarded as one of the best minds in ecclesiology of the 20th century. The subject of Levada’s dissertation was “The Infallible Church Magisterium and the Natural Moral Law,” examining how the magisterium understands natural law, and especially its binding force. Levada reviewed a range of theological opinions and drew what one observer described as “balanced, judicious” conclusions. Given the way that moral questions, especially on sexual issues and biotechnology, are among the most contentious matters the doctrinal congregation handles, it’s a background that would serve Levada well.

At the same time, because Levada has not spent his career as a professional theologian, he has not developed a deep specialization in any one area. A theologian in Rome described him as a very capable “general practitioner.”

Jesuit Fr. Gerald O’Collins at the Gregorian, who remembers Levada as an industrious doctoral candidate, said that Levada now phones him to keep tabs on his own men.

“He keeps in touch,” O’Collins said. “He says, ‘How is he doing?’… I feel it kind of encourages the student to finish, because the archbishop needs him back.”

O’Collins described Levada as “an extremely decent human being.”

During a later stint in Rome, Levada also taught part-time at the Gregorian. He ran a seminar for third-year students, intended to produce a lengthy paper as a kind of synthesis of their work in the first cycle. Colleagues say that Levada was a very capable director, asking critical questions that stimulated thought rather than delivering lectures and controlling the discussion himself.

Second, Levada worked in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1976 to 1982, during the era that Croatian Cardinal Franjo Seper was prefect under Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, and for the early months of Ratzinger’s own term. Hence Levada understands the nature of the office and its role in the broader context of the Roman Curia. Since 2000, Levada has served as a member of the congregation, meaning that he would step into the role of prefect already up to speed on current business.

At the same time, however, Levada has been out of the Roman Curia since 1982, serving in the California Catholic Conference of Bishops and the archdiocese of Los Angeles prior to his appointment as the archbishop of Portland in 1986 and archbishop of San Francisco in 1995. He has risen to prominence through pastoral leadership in his home country, rather than on the back of a succession of curial appointments. That means Levada would re-enter the world of the Vatican relatively independent of the obligations and loyalties that moving up through the Vatican can engender, leaving him, at least in theory, free to make objective judgments – a bit, observers note, like Ratzinger himself, who entered the Roman Curia in 1981 already as a cardinal.

Third, Levada has an ideal resume for a prefect of the doctrinal office. From 1986 to 1993 he served as the only American bishop on the editorial committee of the Vatican commission for a Catechism of the Catholic Church. He authored the catechism’s glossary, which was published in the English-language second edition. Levada also served on a joint U.S.-Vatican mixed commission that finalized the American norms concerning priests accused of sexual abuse, as well as on a task force on the church’s response to dissenting Catholic politicians. He is presently the chair of the U.S. bishops’ committee on doctrine.

At the same time, however, Levada would not be bashful about questioning a bishops’ conference if he felt a matter of the faith was at stake. In a 1999 interview with the National Catholic Reporter, Levada said he was sometimes grateful to the CDF for stepping in.

“I can think of one or two questions when I’ve been in the minority on votes in the American bishops, and I’m pleased that the Vatican has said, ‘Hey, wait a minute. That doesn’t seem like that’s such a good thing to us.’ Well, right on!” Levada said. “I think sometimes the American bishops take decisions in discussions that are too rushed, too agenda-driven. We don’t give enough time to points of view. I’m not saying that’s all the time, but it has happened.”

(continued)

 

[chicago]

Fourth, since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the juridical responsibility for handling cases of priests accused of sexual abuse, Levada’s background as a member of the U.S. bishops’ conference and the “mixed commission” that worked out the American norms means that he would bring an insider’s understanding to those issues, and become a powerful voice in setting Vatican policy on the sexual abuse issue.

Fifth, Levada has the real-world pastoral experience of administering two complex archdioceses in Portland and San Francisco, so he would bring empathy for brother bishops facing their own pastoral difficulties. Moreover, both Portland and San Francisco are fairly liberal, post-modern environments where making the case for church teaching on many issues is a challenge, equipping Levada to play a special role in Pope Benedict’s campaign to confront a “dictatorship of relativism” in the developed West.

Sixth, Levada has a reputation as someone with the capacity to find imaginative solutions to difficult problems. A leading case in point came in 1997, when the City of San Francisco threatened to withdraw funding from any social service agency that did not provide health benefits to domestic partners. I was in Los Angeles at the time and was assigned to cover the story, and it seemed for a brief period that the city and the church were at a stalemate. At the eleventh hour, however, Levada proposed allowing employees to designate anyone they wanted as a recipient of benefits on their health plans – an aunt, a parent, a good friend, etc. In that sense, the church was making benefits more widely available, without endorsing same-sex relationships. One Catholic theologian at the time called the decision “Solomonic,” though some critics still felt it fudged over the church’s opposition to homosexuality.

None of this is to suggest that Levada lacks critics. On the left, some recall Levada’s efforts to “water down” a proposed pastoral letter of American bishops on women, or his role in opposing some forms of “inclusive language” in the translation of liturgical texts; conservatives sometimes complain that he has not cracked down on what they see as a center of “dissent” at the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco, or that he has not been a more energetic participant in the “culture wars,” given San Francisco’s profile as a center of pro-gay activism. Sex abuse victims sometimes argue that Levada has not been sufficiently transparent or cooperative in responding to the crisis.

It would be difficult to imagine, however, anyone who could step into the job at the CDF utterly without “baggage.” What Levada does seem to bring is intellectual preparation and life experience well suited for the challenge of heading the doctrinal office, plus a pre-existing relationship with the pope. Given that, it’s little surprise he’s was the Pope’s choice.

 

[Illini]

chicago:

Cardinal Bernardin tried to “lay down the law” and stop general absolution. The pastors threatened to hand him the keys to their parishes, leave the faithful entirely unattended to, and essentially force a major schism. Cardinal George has simply been waiting out the pastors who insist upon the practice, refusing to assign newly ordained priests to their parishes, appointing pastors who will correct things when the old pastors terms run out, and such. There HAS been improvement. I would not be so quick as to make the broad statement that “most of the priests in the archdiocese are disobedient”. That really is a slam against far too many of the good priests who don’t get (or seek) attention, but go about their tasks faithfully. Certainly, there is a fair amount of problematic elements (mostly aging), but they shouldn’t necessarily define the whole of the situation.

 Living in the neighboring Diocese of Joliet, I would second that. When Cardinal George first came to Chicago, he tried to correct the liturgical abuses, and the old guard **publicly** mocked him as "Francis the Corrector." However, in his eight years here he has gained control of the archdiocese and the respect of the local media. That allowed him to move the rector of the Cathedral even though the rector took his protest **public**. The disobedience of the old guard here is incredible. 

 However, Cardinal George improved Mundelein Seminary (our parish has experienced a recent graduate, who likes to quote St. Catherine of Siena :thumbsup: ) and has ordained an average of 15 men to the priesthood each of the last four years (including 16 next Saturday), so his leadership and his people are starting to have an impact. 

 The "reforms" of the 1970's take a long time to undo!

-Illini

 

[chicago]

Illini:

That allowed him to move the rector of the Cathedral even though the rector took his protest public. The disobedience of the old guard here is incredible.

Though I think it could be legitimately argued that this protest enabled Frs. Wall and Pfleger to keep their respective pastorates due to the backlash.

“Red” (Fr. McLaughlin, that former cathedarl rector) died recently, BTW.

 

[benedictusoblat]

fix:

Any chance Fr. Fessio will become bishop of SF?

This would cause a number of cardiac arrests in the halls of the University of San Francisco. What I wouldn’t give to see their faces after all the grief they have given him!

 

[benedictusoblat]

Brad:

Trust the Pope.

I did … until the 1960’s when he allowed the smoke of Satan to enter the Church through his own poor judgment.

I trust the Pope … like Ronald Reagan trusted the Russians. “Trust and verify.” Unfortunately trust lost in the last generation cannot be regained until it is earned. I have every hope the new Holy Father will earn our trust … but he won’t get mine until I see good fruit on the tree.

 

[benedictusoblat]

Brad:

For example, where are any actual transcripts from the court documents?

You’ve got to be kidding. Who requires that kind of standard for passing a smell test? If you want to convict him and send him to jail - yes, absolutely! Archbishop Levada isn’t an Archbishop Burke. Maybe he will become one. Pope Benedict XVI knows why he appointed him - we can only speculate. I honestly hope it was for some good reason - better than just a desire to reward an old friend regardless of that friend’s beliefs.

Time will tell what this tree’s fruit smells like.

 

[grotto]

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_55.gif We are living in some awesome times! Think about it - all of the saintly work done by JPII The Great, and now Holy Father B16 rolling up his sleeves and shaping up the management! Hopeful, optimistic, encouraged, and loyal, are the ways we need to follow our Faith.

So, I don’t want to see cheap shots taken against anyone Our Holy Father gives an assignment to. I hope in all the posts of this thread I didn’t encounter any of that, did I? :tsktsk: I’m not scolding - you will know when I am scolding!

 

[Illini]

chicago:

Though I think it could be legitimately argued that this protest enabled Frs. Wall and Pfleger to keep their respective pastorates due to the backlash.

 True enough. The Cardinal has to pick (and has picked) his battles wisely. I do not know the Fr. Wall story.

“Red” (Fr. McLaughlin, that former cathedarl rector) died recently, BTW.

 Thanks for reminding me. I recall seeing that a few months ago.

-Illini

 

[chicago]

Illini:

True enough. The Cardinal has to pick (and has picked) his battles wisely. I do not know the Fr. Wall story.

Longtime pastor of Old St. Pat’s. He could be rightly credited with helping to turn around an old, signifigant, and historic parish into something dynamic which thrives. But it is also kind of the center of ecclesiastical liberalism locally. That’s where all the politicians like to go to Mass so they don’t have to face difficult decisions, for instance. (Fr. Wall, a dedicated Democrat, also stood in to say the opening prayer at the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, after Cardinal Bernardin declined the invitation.) The cardinal, around the same time as the replacement of “Red” wanted to replace the pastors of St. Sabina and St. Pat’s, also. Due to the backlash from the cathedral situation (and because these pastors apparently fought at least tacitly their removal - canonically it is hard to remove a pastor without their consent unless there is serious reason), he had to let them be for now; explaining that it isn’t ultimately “thier” parish and that at some future appropriate time when a proper replacement is found, they would have to leave.

 

[m134e5]

God will not abandon his Church. If you don’t think things are going right, then pray about it. Pray for those who dissent from Church teaching (prayers for lapsed Catholics bring people like Bob and Penny Lord, and Fr. Corapi back to the Faith- and what a blessing they have been to us!).

My God,
I believe, I adore, I hope and I love Thee!
I beg pardon for those who do not believe,
do not adore, do not hope,
and do not love Thee.

Most Holy Trinity,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
I adore Thee profoundly.
I offer Thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity
of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world,
in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and
indifferences by which He is offended.
By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
and the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I beg the conversion of poor sinners.

 

[edgefly81]

In relation to Cardinal George in Chicago and Levada from SF, I think this is another example on how B16 is going to carry on the work of JP2. Plus if we were to analyze JP2’s appointment of bishops, especially the past few years, he has appointed people who are very-much in line with his opinions.

Although this is no shock to many, whenever new appointments happen, its usually someone who is totally different than the previous bishop. Benardin was very popular so George had big shoes to fill. The same has happened here in Michigan where in the Lansing Diocese, Carl Mengeling replaced Ken Povish who was HUGELY popular. And within this year, Ken Untener from Saginaw died and now Robert Carlson is the new bishop. All of these moves were, metaphorically, “ways for the Church to clean house” in certain areas.

With Levada, B16 sounds like he knows some of the problems of the Church here in the U.S. So perhaps he thinks this guy will help improve the Church here. However, he’s also following JP2 where he is bringing someone from his “inner circle”, which could irritate some in the Roman Curia.

It remains to be seen…

jlw:

That’s what I thought.

 

[TPJCatholic]

I found the following article quite disturbing (it sure does not look like faithful Catholics are going to be happy):

catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?category_id=10

 

[DustinsDad]

TPJCatholic:

I found the following article quite disturbing (it sure does not look like faithful Catholics are going to be happy):

catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?category_id=10

That article does seem a little disturbing to my ears. The best part, though, is this line:

“Any decisions taken by the CDF are made by a vote of the cardinals who are members of the Congregation, and subject to the approval of the Pope.”

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Illini]

chicago:

Longtime pastor of Old St. Pat’s. He could be rightly credited with helping to turn around an old, signifigant, and historic parish into something dynamic which thrives. But it is also kind of the center of ecclesiastical liberalism locally.

Oh, my. I attended a wedding at Old St. Pat's over two years ago. I was looking forward to it because I knew the parish had been rescued from near-death but left very disappointed. Liturgical abuses were rampant, to the point of ad libbing the Gospel and even the Eucharistic Prayer. I was waiting in vain to hear any mention of Jesus in the Homily. :nope: , it was all about the Bride and Groom.

 I do not know who the priest who said mass was.

 Also less than impressed with the remodeling. St. Patrick is great and all, but the crucifix, and not a statue of him, should be behind the alter. The tabernacle is behind the alter but is made almost indistinguishable from the back wall.

-Illini