Ratzinger & the bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HagiaSophia

Guest
I was rather surprised to read the following statements given by Bishop Vasa in an interview with reference to the letter from Cardinal Ratzingerr regarding reception of Eucharist by politicians who had voted pro choice . From this news report, it appears that the bishops were not presented with the letter from Rome until after the fact - I find this odd, not surprising, but odd:

Quote ferom the interview:

McCarrick, chair of the ‘Task Force’ committee, apparently withheld the memorandum from the USCCB, and even perhaps from the ‘Task Force’ committee.

Were all of the bishops informed of Cardinal Ratzinger’s clear supportive directive citing why the bishops must deny manifest, obstinate, persistent persons in grave sin?

Bishop Vasa replied that the June memorandum from Cardinal Ratzinger was not given to the Conference of Bishops in Denver.
“As I recall, Cardinal McCarrick made reference to some letter, but I did not see a copy of the letter at the meeting. I don’t know if the committee writing the ‘Statement,’ entitled “Catholics in Political Life,” was given a copy of the letter.”

Bishop Vasa was not sure when the memorandum was delivered to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Gregory.

It is well known that Cardinal McCarrick presented to the Conference his ‘Interim Report’, which instead warned against denying anyone the Eucharist.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1155
 
40.png
dumb_ox:
Hagia,

I found it not just odd. I found it sinister.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
I’m left handed, and I object to the use of the word sinister.

John

OFF TOPIC, I know.

WRT, HE McCarrick, maybe he only had the highlights at the beginning of the meeting. What, nobody gets any slack if someone figures what they’ve produced is wrong? The Conference must have faith in the Cardinal, why can’t we?

John

Go ahead, beat me up!
 
40.png
dumb_ox:
I found it not just odd. I found it sinister.
Click to expand...
That’s a rather fair description of it I’d say - I also thought it was “outrageous” but as a Vatican and bishop watcher of many years, I wasn’t in the least surprised. 😦
 
John Higgins:
I’m left handed, and I object to the use of the word sinister.
Click to expand...
🙂
John Higgins:
IWRT, HE McCarrick, maybe he only had the highlights at the beginning of the meeting. … The Conference must have faith in the Cardinal, why can’t we?
Click to expand...
To know him is to - well… I have some stock in a silver mine I want to talk to you about…😉
 
Sophia,

I find these news very disturbing to say the least. I remember the days when a Cardinal would have lost his red hat for dishonesty and for damaging the course of what could have been a different direction taken by the bishops of this country.

Antonio 😦
 
Antonio B:
I find these news very disturbing to say the least. I remember the days when a Cardinal would have lost his red hat for dishonesty and for damaging the course of what could have been a different direction taken by the bishops of this country.]
Click to expand...
If I were a bishop I would be livid - just livid. It seems as if an agenda ws in mind from the first and a decision somewhat gerrymandered. I do hope that he has heard from some of his peers and I trust that the next meeting will be somewht different but the election will be over at that point and after the headline grabbing meeting this time, it will be but a footnote.:tsktsk:
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
It seems as if an agenda ws in mind from the first and a decision somewhat gerrymandered.
Click to expand...
I agree. I believe there are bishops and cardinals (McCarrick and Mahony immediately come to mind) who truly believe that you can’t be a good Catholic in the United States unless you’re a Democrat.

Now you and I know that’s not true, that it is a false belief, that one can be a good Catholic (I didn’t say bright, I only said good) whether one is a Democrat, Republican or Independant.

But not McCarrick and Mahony. For them (like some on the far Right), political affiliation is a barometer of how good a Catholic you are.

Now given this is true, it makes sense that they would distort any ‘edicts’ from Rome in order to fit in with their false beliefs (not that they are conscious of it), because to do otherwise would be to deny what they believe is true.

What I’m getting at here is that as much as I dislike Mahony and McCarrick’s errors in judgement, I can’t say for certain that they’re evil. They could simply be misguided by their false beliefs.

But the most ironic thing about this is that I believe THEY are the ones politicizing the whole politician/Communion affair, by putting their personal political opnions above the teachings of the Church. Yet, they are the ones accusing others of the offense they themselves are most guilty of, namely, dragging their political views into the Church.

By the way, in the spirit of ‘de-politicizing’ this issue, I suggest the bishops also deny Communion to Catholic journalists who publically support legalized abortion. Surely their behavior falls within the bounds of “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.” Their scandalous behavior is nearly as bad as politicians because they help the cause of murdering babies, albeit not in nearly as proximate a manner as politicans do.
 
John Higgins:
I’m left handed, and I object to the use of the word sinister.

John
Click to expand...
Shall we say that he was slyly dextrous in his handling of the situation. 😃
 
Code:
40.png
HagiaSophia:
If I were a bishop I would be livid - just livid. It seems as if an agenda ws in mind from the first and a decision somewhat gerrymandered. I do hope that he has heard from some of his peers and I trust that the next meeting will be somewht different but the election will be over at that point and after the headline grabbing meeting this time, it will be but a footnote.:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Well, I’m livid just reading about it and as a lay person I feel betrayed by some of these bishops and what McCarrick did would be enough for the Holy Father to have a stroke!

Why folks like McCarrick and Mahony can openly distort sound Catholic teaching without Rome stepping in, is beyond me!

:mad: Antonio
 
40.png
dumb_ox:
But not McCarrick and Mahony. For them (like some on the far Right), political affiliation is a barometer of how good a Catholic you are.

Now given this is true, it makes sense that they would distort any ‘edicts’ from Rome in order to fit in with their false beliefs (not that they are conscious of it), because to do otherwise would be to deny what they believe is true.
Click to expand...
I also think they are still smarting at the CDF over Dominus Iesus and it was kind of “payback” time, two birds with one stone so to speak.
40.png
dumb_ox:
But the most ironic thing about this is that I believe THEY are the ones politicizing the whole politician/Communion affair, by putting their personal political opnions above the teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
Precisely. And they could have solved this problem by addressing politicians from any political party.
 
You know, Hagia, I truly believe there is a distinct element of heresy at work here. There has to be a reason why these bishops refuse to deny Communion to persons who they know are formally cooperating with murder. How could it not be true? Anyone with any sense can see it’s wrong. And if they’re so blind that they can’t, surely Cannon Law c.915 makes it clear. And if that’s STILL not clear enough, you have Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father’s statements! How much more evidence do you need to see how wrong you are?

The only explaination I can think of is that these bishops have raised partisan political policy to a level above the doctrine of the Church. They worship public policy over God (even though they may not consciously realize it). It’s a heresy, plain and simple. And it’s very widespread.

Reminds me of von Hidebrand’s book, “Trojan Horse in the City of God.” This IS a Trojan Horse in the very heart of the Church, the City of God.
 
40.png
dumb_ox:
You know, Hagia, I truly believe there is a distinct element of heresy at work here. There has to be a reason why these bishops refuse to deny Communion to persons who they know are formally cooperating with murder. How could it not be true? Anyone with any sense can see it’s wrong. And if they’re so blind that they can’t, surely Cannon Law c.915 makes it clear. And if that’s STILL not clear enough, you have Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father’s statements! How much more evidence do you need to see how wrong you are?

The only explaination I can think of is that these bishops have raised partisan political policy to a level above the doctrine of the Church. They worship public policy over God (even though they may not consciously realize it). It’s a heresy, plain and simple. And it’s very widespread.

Reminds me of von Hidebrand’s book, “Trojan Horse in the City of God.” This IS a Trojan Horse in the very heart of the Church, the City of God.
Click to expand...
Sumpin’ is definitely wrong - the way the letter was handled tells me more than I wanted to know and affirms some of what I “suspected” - I think politics, both national and church, an exaggerated sense of being pastoral over being of principle, and some very large egos all played into it. 😦
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Sumpin’ is definitely wrong - the way the letter was handled tells me more than I wanted to know and affirms some of what I “suspected” - I think politics, both national and church, an exaggerated sense of being pastoral over being of principle, and some very large egos all played into it. 😦
Click to expand...
I think it is less political than a desire to look good on the front page of the New York Times. They equate pastoral with popular. That’s how they got into the abuse crisis.

Unfortunately they didn’t learn how fleeting media popularity is. *Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. *
 
Joe Kelley:
Unfortunately they didn’t learn how fleeting media popularity is. *Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. *
Click to expand...
They also apparently didn’t remember Lincoln’s adage about a house divided against itself…
:tsktsk:
 
Antonio B:
Code:
Well, I’m livid just reading about it and as a lay person I feel betrayed by some of these bishops and what McCarrick did would be enough for the Holy Father to have a stroke!

Why folks like McCarrick and Mahony can openly distort sound Catholic teaching without Rome stepping in, is beyond me!

:mad: Antonio
Click to expand...
I live in the LA Archdiocese and I must confess that I find much of what Cardinal Mahony does and says offensive. I believe that the cardinal has bought into the “spirit of Vatican II” idea that the Catholic Church must become more protestant in order to achieve Christian unity. The ugly monstrosity known as the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels epitomizes his episcopate. Unlike the great Roamesque and Gothic cathedrals of the past which sought to inspire Catholics to seek the glory of God, the new LA cathedral exemplifies the modernist concept of “worship space”–plain, functional, and uninspiring. In other words, protestant!
 
Lincoln may have talked about a house divided but it was St Matthew who said it first in 3:25 🙂
 
I think this is terrible. If the bishops are not listening to the vatican, then they should not be bishops. If they are given letters showing how they must handel an issue and they ignore it, they should not be bishops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top