Please write to the editor of the LA diocese newspaper Tidings. This is outrageous!

[GloriaPatri4]

Fr. McBrien has been writing in the LA archdiocesan newspaper for too long, promoting his ‘personal views’ which in many cases are simply contrary to official teaching and doctrine of the Church

Almost every single week he has an article with a similar agenda, usually criticizing Church positions, views, and doctrine. These kind of articles create a lot of confusion among the laity who read his columns, after all he is a priest and he has a whole page of the paper to simply advertise his unorthodox views. Please write to the Diocesan paper editors and express to them your desire to have Fr. McBrien’s views excluded from the newspaper to avoid confusion and his promotion of dissentment within the Church.
Here you can find the different emails of the editors of the Tidings.

the-tidings.com/contact/index.htm

Friday, January 6, 2006

http://www.the-tidings.com/img/shim.gifBanned in Boston

What happened in Boston last month was emblematic of what has been happening in the Catholic Church nationally and, to some extent, worldwide over the past two decades and more.

A tiny group of ultra-conservative Catholics protested the decision of Catholic Charities of Boston, the largest private social services agency in Massachusetts, to confer its annual award upon Boston’s mayor, Thomas Menino. Catholic Charities honored him for his commitment to the poor and to the cause of justice. The activists, on the other hand, regard him as an advocate of abortion and gay marriage.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Sean O’Malley yielded to their pressure and boycotted the dinner, whose sole purpose is to raise money to fund the wide-ranging work of Catholic Charities on behalf of the needy of the Boston area.

Please continue reading

the-tidings.com/2006/0106/essays.htm

Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

Moderator note: Please limit quotes to one to three paragraphs.

 

[Catholic29]

The fact that Fr. McBrien has not been suspeneded from ministry or silenced is remarkable in itself, but his continued heterodox bantering in the L.A. archdiocese’s official newspaper can be fairly assessed as being nothing less than outrageous. I have to assume that many poorly catechized Catholics are being confused and led astray by his dirt, especially with a population of 4 million Catholics at his fingertips.

Not only should the Tidings editor be written to, but also the Cardinal’s office and the Vatican. Anyone have addresses readily available? Otherwise I will be back later with them…

 

[frommi]

Can someone clue me in as to what is so awful about this particular column?

His words are much more thoughtful than the woman who wrote:

“That man is pure unadulterated evil. He literally sends shivers up my spine. If he and his cronies think we’re going to tolerate he and the Archbishop’s material cooperation in abortions — we’ll chase them out of town faster than you can say Voice of the Faithful.”

Once again, it seems clear to me that cafeteria catholicism pervades all corners of the church…but in particular those who pick and choose who in the “hierarchy” they are willing to listen to.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Not my diocese and not my paper, so I don’t think I get to tell them what to do.

I don’t understand what McBrien did in this column that was so wrong. Is it illegitimate even to debate whether Catholic Charities should have given this award to this person? I don’t think so.

You don’t like McBrien’s answer, so you dismiss his approach as unorthodox. One of the distressing tendencies in our Church is increasing desire of people to muzzle those whom they don’t agree with. It’s not just “conservatives” or “orthodox” who do it, either.

There are some things that God requires of us. We are allowed to discuss what those things are and why God requires them. Because we are foolish people who see through a glass, darkly, it seems reasonable to me that we must discuss what is required and what is not.

We are certainly allowed to discuss the things that God does not require to discern what the best thing to do is.

That’s what McBrien is doing. You don’t like it because you disagree with him. Lighten up.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Penny Plain:

. . .
I don’t understand what McBrien did in this column that was so wrong. Is it illegitimate even to debate whether Catholic Charities should have given this award to this person? I don’t think so.

You don’t like McBrien’s answer, so you dismiss his approach as unorthodox. One of the distressing tendencies in our Church is increasing desire of people to muzzle those whom they don’t agree with. It’s not just “conservatives” or “orthodox” who do it, either.
. . .
.

It appears to me that Father McBrien is condemning those who oppose his view. He denies their right to debate the matter.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Joe Kelley:

It appears to me that Father McBrien is condemning those who oppose his view. He denies their right to debate the matter.

Where? Are you referring to the following paragraphs?

What has changed on the ecclesiastical and political fronts over the past decade is the broad accessibility of the Internet. With it has come a new capacity of individuals, who could never be published by reputable newspapers and magazines, to gain an audience via personal blogs and to attract the attention even of the mainstream media, which are always interested in controversy, especially of the man-bites-dog variety.

The rhetoric of these self-styled defenders of orthodoxy is so recklessly hot that it automatically gets attention. This is the new reality.

Essentially, he’s calling them obnoxious loudmouths. He doesn’t seem (to me, anyway) to be saying they shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Instead, he is decrying the content and tone of their speech. He wants others to do the same. That is not denying their right to speak; it is arguing against it.

He is engaging in a debate. The original poster of this thread wants to silence debate by having McBrien’s column pulled from the paper.

 

[frommi]

Penny Plain:

Essentially, he’s calling them obnoxious loudmouths. He doesn’t seem (to me, anyway) to be saying they shouldn’t be allowed to speak. Instead, he is decrying the content and tone of their speech. He wants others to do the same. That is not denying their right to speak; it is arguing against it.

He is engaging in a debate. The original poster of this thread wants to silence debate by having McBrien’s column pulled from the paper.

Sounds about right to me…

I’ve seen multiple accounts of the attacks on some of the people in Boston by these “authentic” Catholics and it really gets under my skin. Mostly because their authenticity makes them decidedly unauthentic.

 

[koda]

frommi:

Can someone clue me in as to what is so awful about this particular column?

His words are much more thoughtful than the woman who wrote:

“That man is pure unadulterated evil. He literally sends shivers up my spine. If he and his cronies think we’re going to tolerate he and the Archbishop’s material cooperation in abortions — we’ll chase them out of town faster than you can say Voice of the Faithful.”

Once again, it seems clear to me that cafeteria catholicism pervades all corners of the church…but in particular those who pick and choose who in the “hierarchy” they are willing to listen to.

Not only who, but when. I’ve seen many here who constantly quote the CCC until someone brings up something they disagree with, like the use of nuclear weapons.

Not to mention the fact that it is generally the right that is loudly clammoring for the left to shut up - not the other way around. And most of those who say others are “hateful” usually sound pretty hateful themselves.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Penny Plain:

That is not denying their right to speak; it is arguing against it.

Unclear, and too late to edit.

What I meant was the following:

That is not denying their right to speak; it is arguing against what they have to say and how they choose to say it.

The Times regrets the error.

 

[fix]

frommi:

Once again, it seems clear to me that cafeteria catholicism pervades all corners of the church…but in particular those who pick and choose who in the “hierarchy” they are willing to listen to.

I guess I can’t grasp your point? If a cleric, or bishop, speaks error does that mean one should give credence or assent to the error?

 

[Catholic29]

fix:

I guess I can’t grasp your point? If a cleric, or bishop, speaks error does that mean one should give credence or assent to the error?

My questions exactly.

It seems everyone is supposed to assent to, or not disagree with at least to any Catholic cleric’s teachings, even if it contradicts with the next priest’s or bishop’s, much less the Catechism or Scripture.

 

[frommi]

fix:

I guess I can’t grasp your point? If a cleric, or bishop, speaks error does that mean one should give credence or assent to the error?

Oh, I think we see this happening all of the time. If a bishop allows the Tridentine rite, he’s “authentic”, he’s “orthodox” and worthy of solemn obedience.

If a bishop uses his canonical and ecclesiastical authority to allow the pouring of precious blood during the agnus dei (as Cardinal Mahony has), he is “leading the church down an evil path and we must pray for him”.

If a bishop denies the Eucharist to a politician who is anti-abortion he is “defending the faith”, but no criticism is ever leveled on him when he shares the stage with a speaker or candidate who is “pro-death penalty”.

It’s not about assenting to error, it’s about being appropriate about one’s concerns, and taking time to realize the goodwill of both sides of these theological arguments.

 

[fix]

Catholic29:

My questions exactly.

It seems everyone is supposed to assent to, or not disagree with at least to any Catholic cleric’s teachings, even if it contradicts with the next priest’s or bishop’s, much less the Catechism or Scripture.

It would be my understanding that the term cafeteria Catholic means rejecting the authority of the Church to teach authoritatively on faith and morals. Rejecting the false words of a priest or bishop is not rejecting the authority of the Church, it is being faithful to Her.

 

[Confiteor]

Fr. McBrien is way off base. Keep in mind the US Bishops conference agreed in 2004 not to honor or give a platform to people who were flagrantly against the Church’s moral teachings. This was one of the few areas that they settled (or so they said) in their June 2004 meeting. That’s why the Archbishop

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The mayor of Boston fits this category of individual and “Catholic Charities” fits this category of institution.

You can read this document here:
[usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml)

 

[fix]

frommi:

Oh, I think we see this happening all of the time. If a bishop allows the Tridentine rite, he’s “authentic”, he’s “orthodox” and worthy of solemn obedience.

Not necessarily. A bishop is being faithful if he assents to all the teachings and tries to eliminate error when he sees it is being taught to the faithful. Those are at least two things I think are important. It certainly is not nuancing the moral law and claiming a juridical communion with Rome while openly dissenting.

If a bishop uses his canonical and ecclesiastical authority to allow the pouring of precious blood during the agnus dei (as Cardinal Mahony has), he is “leading the church down an evil path and we must pray for him”.

I do not know the specifics. If a particular bishop is intentionally defying the authority of Rome on liturgical matters I hardly would call him orthodox.

If a bishop denies the Eucharist to a politician who is anti-abortion he is “defending the faith”, but no criticism is ever leveled on him when he shares the stage with a speaker or candidate who is “pro-death penalty”.

Are abortion and the death penalty equal in terms of moral weight and Church teaching?

It’s not about assenting to error, it’s about being appropriate about one’s concerns, and taking time to realize the goodwill of both sides of these theological arguments.

That would be fine if it were true. More often I find the “liberals” trying to claim dissent is being faithful.

 

[frommi]

fix:

Are abortion and the death penalty equal in terms of moral weight and Church teaching?

That would be fine if it were true. More often I find the “liberals” trying to claim dissent is being faithful.

Perhaps abortion and the death penalty are not ‘equal’ in moral weight, but how can it be appropriate for a bishop to appear with someone who is defying church teaching by advocating for wider use of the death penalty. It’s not about moral weight at all, both are wrong.

The main issue is that it’s very easy to throw around terms like “orthodox” and “heterodox” without really stopping to consider what harm such grenade throwing does to the overall health of this church.

This thread was started by someone who seems to have an issue with Fr. McBrien’s latest column, where he criticizes this new and exciting wing of “authentic” catholics that seem the believe they are the keepers of tradition and guardians of the deposit of faith. And that they can arbitrate better than the local church or the church of Rome matters of faith.

This is a dangerous path, and Fr. McBrien is right, in an era of internet blogs and email, it takes no time at all for stuff to spread throughout the known universe and taken on a non-contextual life of its own.

I’ve had enough of the approach that surmises that we should be obedient to the pope, but not to the bishops he chose.

 

[Catholic29]

fix:

It would be my understanding that the term cafeteria Catholic means rejecting the authority of the Church to teach authoritatively on faith and morals. Rejecting the false words of a priest or bishop is not rejecting the authority of the Church, it is being faithful to Her.

Thank you for the clarification, it is what I have thought. But it appeared some others in this thread had different ideas about this.

 

[Penny_Plain]

“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

My understanding of this was that:

(1) the Mayor of Boston was being honoured for matters entirely unrelated to his alleged defiance of fundamental moral principles and

(2) the acts for which he was being honoured were in keeping with our Church’s fundamental moral principles.

Am I wrong about either of these?

I guess I don’t understand how honouring him for one thing implies that we are honouring him for all things. That’s like saying I can’t tell my homosexual uncle that I like his new haircut because I’m approving of his homosexuality by doing so.

If we honour only the perfect, we will have nobody to honour.

Also, I want to be clear on one other thing. Are you saying that no American Catholic may legitimately espouse a public position contrary to any position taken by the USCCB?

 

[fix]

frommi:

Perhaps abortion and the death penalty are not ‘equal’ in moral weight, but how can it be appropriate for a bishop to appear with someone who is defying church teaching by advocating for wider use of the death penalty. It’s not about moral weight at all, both are wrong.

Personally I am opposed to the death penalty, but it is not Church teaching that one must be opposed to it. Please see the CCC.

The main issue is that it’s very easy to throw around terms like “orthodox” and “heterodox” without really stopping to consider what harm such grenade throwing does to the overall health of this church.

Perhaps you have a point, but for way too long the heterodox have sown the seeds of confusion. We all may jump the gun, but cases like Fr. Mc Brien are clear cut. He has a long public history.

This thread was started by someone who seems to have an issue with Fr. McBrien’s latest column, where he criticizes this new and exciting wing of “authentic” catholics that seem the believe they are the keepers of tradition and guardians of the deposit of faith. And that they can arbitrate better than the local church or the church of Rome matters of faith.

So, when the liberal folks claim they want endless “dialogue” about moral issues that will never ever change that is reasonable, but when the conservatives ask that bishops obey Rome they are disobedient? I get it now.

This is a dangerous path, and Fr. McBrien is right, in an era of internet blogs and email, it takes no time at all for stuff to spread throughout the known universe and taken on a non-contextual life of its own.

The nonsense that priest has foisted on the faithful for so long cannot all be gathered up and corrected. That is of greater concern to me.

I’ve had enough of the approach that surmises that we should be obedient to the pope, but not to the bishops he chose.

You are against right reason and logic? If the bishop is acting against the Pope’s teaching and one has a correctly formed conscience one has an obligation to obey the higher authority.

 

[frommi]

fix:

You are against right reason and logic? If the bishop is acting against the Pope’s teaching and one has a correctly formed conscience one has an obligation to obey the higher authority.

The fallacy is that the pope IS a higher authority…there are three ranks of holy orders…deacon, priest, bishop. That’s it…the bishops aren’t branch managers.