Why does the Archdiocese of Detroit weekly paper allow ...?

[setter]

Let’s keep in mind that you are citing articles that were written before the 1994 exhortation by JPII regarding women’s ordination.

“The editors — Bishop Untener’s “theology squad” who used to help him in the writing of his homilies and reflections — have put together a well organized distillation of homilies and other articles and presentations that Bishop Untener wrote or delivered during the 24 years he served as bishop of Saginaw.”, did add a footnote that the article was written before JPII’s Apostolic Letter ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’. However, this begs the question, why would the proponents of the bishop’s “prophetic vision” include a refuted article? The agenda of these aging dissidents becomes quite transparent, would you not agree?

And I do think it’s a legitimate gripe that people can have with the church…instead of defending the teachings of the church by talking with people who have questions about them and showing an openess to ‘situations’ and how to apply those teachings…the universal church often acts like they can’t believe anyone would even have a problem with some of this stuff…

Quite the contrary. The dissidents employ the default tactic of accusing the legitimate teaching authority of the Church magisterium of playing the power card, when in fact, they are unable to make the argument through engaging the theological and philosophical underpinnings and constructs of the authoritative teachings and rulings.

 

[Joe_Stong]

I knew of him too. But for the sake of the argument, lets’ get someone’s specific quote of where he dissented from Catholic doctrine.

I mean, if his dissent was good, then there’d be a perfectly defendible argument to make showing any open minded believer why he arrived at the conclusion he did.

But let’s not confuse decisions on contingent matters of governmance say, with teachings that are in principle contrary to the Catholic faith.

For example, suppose he ruled that parishes could not have Eucharistic adoration because he was worried about churches being open throughout the night with only 1 or 2 faithful on hand…a contingent executive decision a person could agree or disagree with without him being necessarily wrong.

On the other hand, if he preached that women should be ordained because it’s the cool thing to do, period, then not only could one prove beyond all doubt that this “dissent” is not Catholic, but that for a bishop to preach this dissent knowingly shows him to either be under-educated in Catholic doctrine or knowingly misleading people.

But without specific quotes from his own writings, we’ll go nowhere and it’ll all be about taste. People liking him or not is always besides’ the point when it comes to whether or not a shepherd is leading people in his care towards Jesus or towards their own opinion.

 

[setter]

I knew of him too. But for the sake of the argument, lets’ get someone’s specific quote of where he dissented from Catholic doctrine.

I have already cited two quotes that show where he actively dissents from the authority of Church teaching.

I mean, if his dissent was good, then there’d be a perfectly defendible argument to make showing any open minded believer why he arrived at the conclusion he did.

But let’s not confuse decisions on contingent matters of governmance say, with teachings that are in principle contrary to the Catholic faith.

For example, suppose he ruled that parishes could not have Eucharistic adoration because he was worried about churches being open throughout the night with only 1 or 2 faithful on hand…a contingent executive decision a person could agree or disagree with without him being necessarily wrong.

On the other hand, if he preached that women should be ordained because it’s the cool thing to do, period, then not only could one prove beyond all doubt that this “dissent” is not Catholic, but that for a bishop to preach this dissent knowingly shows him to either be under-educated in Catholic doctrine or knowingly misleading people.

In all due respect, you sound naïve. Do you expect this dissident bishop of the Church to come right out and directly defy and challenge the authoritative and binding teaching of the Church? The dissident tactic is to carefully never oppose the authoritative Church teaching, but to create an air of ambiguity and suspicion about how the Church arrived at, implemented and maintained the teaching. It becomes a strategy and matter of redefining, reshaping the debate, pointing the finger to other non-substantive reasons as the basis for disputing, eroding the credibility, questioning the binding quality, and ultimately acting on a false notion of autonomy of individual conscience. The dissenters notoriously avoid a substantive discussion and debate on the underlying premise and principles, the in depth theological, and philosophical why’s of the Church definitive Church teaching.

But without specific quotes from his own writings, we’ll go nowhere and it’ll all be about taste. People liking him or not is always besides’ the point when it comes to whether or not a shepherd is leading people in his care towards Jesus or towards their own opinion.

It is not at all about a matter of personal taste or preference as you superficially suggest. It is all about where a dissident clergy/religious/theologian/laity of influence in the Church has lead the flock entrusted to his care …check out the fruit of this bishop’s heterodoxy in the dismal number of vocations that come from his diocese during his tenure; the scandal at the seminary he was head of; the division amongst the clergy and laity in his diocese; liturgical abuses; … Bad fruit is the evidence by which the tree of dissidence will be known. Dissidence and heterodoxy will never lead the flock toward the Jesus of the gospel.

 

[Joe_Stong]

I don’t disagree with your grasp of the situation.

But neither have I lived up there so I’m asking for examples. Otherwise it’s just too easy for threads to degenerate into gossip and judging someone’s intentions based on innuendo and half information…

Prelates and groups both orthodox and not have to deal with people criticising them “in general” or vaguely without specifying what exactly they said or did that was bad.

As for the fruits… yes, I know what you’re talking about. But most people don’t. Spell it out.

If they shut down parishioners who wanted to use the church to have rosaries, but openned the church for parishoners who wanted to have ‘dance’ classes, tell us. Then we can discuss the appropriateness or not of the policy.

If they decided to shutter the seminary but open a multi-million dollar “theology” school for women, in the hopes of eventually ordaining them, then do tell. Otherwise again, we’re not giving them a fair hearing.

If the diocese was full bore behind “peace and justice” issues to the degree of spending tens of thousands of dollars on trips, conventions, and lay involvement in “anti-military” protests but spent little or nothing on the Pro-life cause… then again, tell us.

If the diocese mandated catechesis materials that included books and materials written by known heretics or groups at odds with Catholic Moral teaching (such as PP) then again, tell us. Don’t just say “they watered the faith down so that’s what made them bad” - because ANYONE can CLAIM something. Charity demands we spell what exactly it was that “they” did that wasn’t orthodox so we, the ‘empowered’ laity can do something practical about it and not merely gossip and cast aspersions.

 

[fix]

The dissidents employ the default tactic of accusing the legitimate teaching authority of the Church magisterium of playing the power card, when in fact, they are unable to make the argument through engaging the theological and philosophical underpinnings and constructs of the authoritative teachings and rulings.

Please see this:

This second standpoint is the historic position of Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium, and it is under heavy fire today. We live in the age of what Karl Rahner (in his earlier, more orthodox days) called “cryptogamous heresy” heresy which cannot readily be pin-pointed or “nailed down” with precision, because it consists chiefly of underlying emotional attitudes rather than clearly intelligible propositions. As Rahner said, it “often consists simply in an attitude of mistrust and resentment towards the Church’s Magisterium, in a widespread feeling of being suspiciously and narrow-mindedly supervised.”

** HUNTING THE “HERESY-HUNTERS”**

 

[Joe_Stong]

I see. So since the problem is crypto heresy the solution is to be equally vague in our critique?

I thought that if the truth is worth defending, it’s worth knowing to what degree and in what exact way people have strayed from it, so we can by their very positions lead them back to the truth.

“Sorta, kinda, maybe, like” allusions to a bishop, diocese, religious order, lay spirituality, or individual person…insofar as they’re not accurate inevitably run the risk of missing the mark.

Here’s why I’m sensitive to this… when Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa but before it was widely read, the Bishop of Paris issued a list of heretical propositions which included some thesis which many people THOUGHT were taught by Thomas.

BUT RATHER THAN CALMLY EXPLORE WHETHER THIS IN FACT WAS THE CASE, they took the “safe” route and just banned the Summa Theologica - and it stayed off limits to Catholic theologians and the nascient Catholic Philosophy schools until well after Duns Scotus and William of Ocham went off in the only other logical conclusions; rationalism and fideism… with DISASTEROUS consequences for Western Civilization.

Maybe Bishop Ken was as a crypto-heretic. I’m sure he was no Thomas Aquinas, but its a mark of maturity and honor to give even those with whom you disagree the courtesy of at least basing your disagreement with them on something they actually said, wrote or did and not “well they sorta, kinda, maybe allowed something bad…”

In the end it’s probably not as productive for you or I to curse the darkness as it would be to simply light a candle. Whatever school of theology or pastoral practice the late bishop sought to establish, all indications suggest that it’s on its way out.

As simple as it sounds, the one does not counter error by criticism as much as by proposing the truth in season and out. And we won’t retake the chanceries and parish offices, the schools and the universities by standing outside and sniping, but by volunteering and replacing the personnel from the inside.

All while seeking to listen to what they are saying, praying for their illumination, and instructing them in the true “way” to live the Life in Christ.

People are ALWAYS better than you think they are - which is another reason for patience, mercy, and honesty; once you’re 100% clear on what they said and meant, then and only then can you start to “deconstruct” it or lead them to the fullness of truth as Aquila and Priscilla led Apollo from the Baptism of John to the full Christian understanding of baptism.

 

[setter]

I see. So since the problem is crypto heresy the solution is to be equally vague in our critique?

I for my part have been very specific in content and interpreting the dissent tactics as these forums allow for.

I thought that if the truth is worth defending, it’s worth knowing to what degree and in what exact way people have strayed from it, so we can by their very positions lead them back to the truth.

You have got to be kidding, right? …show me a dissident worth their sand, and I will show you a slippery snake. Dissidents work in shades of grey and darkness, half truths and insinuations, point and redirect tactics. You are wanting a flashing neon light “resident dissident”. These prominent and less so dissidents do not want to give up their positions of influence by directly opposing or coming out of the elusive, hard to nail down shadows of indirect tactics.

“Sorta, kinda, maybe, like” allusions to a bishop, diocese, religious order, lay spirituality, or individual person…insofar as they’re not accurate inevitably run the risk of missing the mark.

I am talking about patterns of public dissidence, not isolated occurances.

Here’s why I’m sensitive to this… when Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa but before it was widely read, the Bishop of Paris issued a list of heretical propositions which included some thesis which many people THOUGHT were taught by Thomas.

BUT RATHER THAN CALMLY EXPLORE WHETHER THIS IN FACT WAS THE CASE, they took the “safe” route and just banned the Summa Theologica - and it stayed off limits to Catholic theologians and the nascient Catholic Philosophy schools until well after Duns Scotus and William of Ocham went off in the only other logical conclusions; rationalism and fideism… with DISASTEROUS consequences for Western Civilization.

“The Practical Prophet” by Bishop Kenneth Untener …not doubt as to who the author is.

Maybe Bishop Ken was as a crypto-heretic. I’m sure he was no Thomas Aquinas, but its a mark of maturity and honor to give even those with whom you disagree the courtesy of at least basing your disagreement with them on something they actually said, wrote or did and not “well they sorta, kinda, maybe allowed something bad…”

I already cited a few samples of his writings that were clearly meant to undermine and sow seeds of distrust and dissention from established and authoritative Church teaching.

In the end it’s probably not as productive for you or I to curse the darkness as it would be to simply light a candle. Whatever school of theology or pastoral practice the late bishop sought to establish, all indications suggest that it’s on its way out.

Tell his die hard cronies and followers that …why should such error and subtle undermining of the faith go unopposed?

As simple as it sounds, the one does not counter error by criticism as much as by proposing the truth in season and out. And we won’t retake the chanceries and parish offices, the schools and the universities by standing outside and sniping, but by volunteering and replacing the personnel from the inside.

I am simply calling it out for what it is …a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

All while seeking to listen to what they are saying, praying for their illumination, and instructing them in the true “way” to live the Life in Christ.

Uhmmm, …have you actually tried to “instruct” a gray head dissident about the “true ‘way’ to live the Life in Christ”? …I will stick with prayers butressed by fasting, thank you.

People are ALWAYS better than you think they are - which is another reason for patience, mercy, and honesty; once you’re 100% clear on what they said and meant, then and only then can you start to “deconstruct” it or lead them to the fullness of truth as Aquila and Priscilla led Apollo from the Baptism of John to the full Christian understanding of baptism.

I am not that naive to accept this …but I agree, we should treat and love others for how we would like then to be.

 

[rwoehmke]

It seems somewhat jarring to me that on one side of our mouths we say accept and trust the magesterium, than on the other side we say no, no, not that bishop or those bishops. It is no wonder to me that there are indeed many folks out there who do not trust the majesterium. Theologically some may be excellent but on a pastoral level some have a pretty spotty track record ( read child abuse cover up etc. ). It is not easy to trust their theology when they stab you in the back on pastoral issues. There are a few of us older folks who swallowed whole much of what “sister said” the Church taught. Then some of us went on to study the teachings as adults via the CCC and Encyclicals, etc. We found out sister had mixed a lot of pious clap-trap that she learned who knows where in with the truth. It sure wasn’t her fault anymore than it was ours. It is not easy to always trust and accept what someone is putting forth as the Truth. I don’t know all that much about Bishop Untener except that some loved him and some hated him, and I doubt anyone but the already too liberal for us orthodox elite are gonna read the book anyway. Isn’t it fun playing that old game, Ain"t It Awful" that they wrote about in “Games People Play.” Keeps me from doing something useful.

 

[setter]

Isn’t it fun playing that old game, Ain"t It Awful" that they wrote about in “Games People Play.” Keeps me from doing something useful.

Funny, I always get the sense from those less than orthodox “gray cap” religious and laity, the message, “I’m okay, you’re not okay …but, with God, that’s okay”.

 

[rwoehmke]

Funny, I always get the sense from those less than orthodox “gray cap” religious and laity, the message, “I’m okay, you’re not okay …but, with God, that’s okay”.

Right on dude! Its endemic.

 

[Joe_Stong]

The criteria of judging whether something is “magisterial” is NOT what the uniform of the person saying something happens to be.

In other words, JUST BECAUSE Sister Mary, or Fr. Bob, or Msgr. Robert or Bishop Jones says something DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY make it “official Church teaching” or “Magisterium” to be followed in faith and obedience.

This leaves us with the Pope and HIS magisterial teachings and ALL those bishops, monsignors, priests, deacons, religious and laity who teach in union with him.

This has been the criteria of judging who is and is not authentically Catholic or a heretic since at least the 2nd century when St Irenaeus of Lyon wrote his works against Heresies.

So a) don’t throw the baby out with the bath water and b) when determining what is baby and what is bath water it helps to be specific.

I AGREE that many “dissenters” are known more in their attitude and actions than in their printed words, and that their style tends to be such that they rhetorically set things up such that “Rome” looks meanspirited and they look like martyrs.

But again, the thread is about why a bland, vague book review and book was allowed to be published in an official newspaper.

It won’t do to just accuse the book and writer of dissent and heresy. YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY what in the book per se, is heretical or wrong, as juxapositioned against, say, the CCC and clear contextual teachings of Vatican II.

In doing so, you will have provided us with an honest look at the book, bishop, and reviewer, as well as Catholic teaching and provided us all with a great opportunity to learn.

I’d do it myself but I’m not the one who brought this up to complain about it in a forum of almost entirely anonymous people.

 

[Lepanto]

Let’s keep in mind that you are citing articles that were written before the 1994 exhortation by JPII regarding women’s ordination.

Yet Gumbleton et. al. feel that Ken’s thoughts on the matter are still pertinent enough to publish them in 2007. :nope:

 

[blessedtoo]

But neither have I lived up there so I’m asking for examples. Otherwise it’s just too easy for threads to degenerate into gossip and judging someone’s intentions based on innuendo and half information…

I am not from the Saginaw diocese, but I started reading the threads in these forums several years ago when Bishop Untener was still there. The incredible sadness and pain of the Catholics was so palpable that I often had tears in my eyes while reading about what they had to endure. Here are just a few of the many examples that you requested.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13822&highlight=Saginaw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8105&highlight=Saginaw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39624&highlight=Saginaw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86683&highlight=Saginaw

 

[fix]

I see. So since the problem is crypto heresy the solution is to be equally vague in our critique?

No, that is a misreading of what I posted.

I replied specifically to this post:

The dissidents employ the default tactic of accusing the legitimate teaching authority of the Church magisterium of playing the power card, when in fact, they are unable to make the argument through engaging the theological and philosophical underpinnings and constructs of the authoritative teachings and rulings.

To that specific comment I left a citation that spoke to that issue. As the link says:

It is generally recognized today that this response, though necessary, was sometimes implemented over-zealously, so that a number of loyal clerics (including the future Pope John XXIII) were unjustly penalised or denounced in the general climate of suspicion. Indeed, the holy Pontiff Pius X himself recognized that some persons were accused without real foundation. It was in a sense “open season” on heretics.

     Today it is remarkable how the mood in the Catholic Church has swung to the opposite pole since the days of the anti-Modernist movement. Everyone familiar with the contemporary world of Catholic religious education - whatever his or her own position on the theological spectrum - is aware that while few will deny in theory that heresy is both possible and (if real) harmful, the whole atmosphere, the social consensus, the emotional ambience, is strongly oriented towards tolerance of novelty. The heretic has been replaced by the "heresy - hunter" (or "right-winger") as the source of division, the object of suspicion and ostracism.

My point was not to offer a point by point reference of that particular bishop’s heterodox words, but to show that even by questioning such positions one is accused of wrongdoing. In short, the pendulum has swung too far to the wrong side.

 

[frommi]

Yet Gumbleton et. al. feel that Ken’s thoughts on the matter are still pertinent enough to publish them in 2007. :nope:

The article published simply offers another take on the concept of “in persona christi”, and in and of itself its a well thought out piece of writing (hardly radical). It’s a rational point of view.

Part of what I think upset people about Bishop Untener was that a lot of his scholarship was well thought out and made sense. His words always seemed to be used in reference to the entire history of the church…not just a slice of it.

 

[frommi]

I am not from the Saginaw diocese, but I started reading the threads in these forums several years ago when Bishop Untener was still there. The incredible sadness and pain of the Catholics was so palpable that I often had tears in my eyes while reading about what they had to endure. Here are just a few of the many examples that you requested.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13822&highlight=Saginaw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8105&highlight=Saginaw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=39624&highlight=Saginaw
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86683&highlight=Saginaw

With all due respect, the ‘pain and anguish’ one would hear in these forums is not exactly neutral.

And the threads you point out don’t really get the heart of what the other poster was saying…what are the specific problems? What was done that wasn’t within a bishop’s authority to do?

I remember that all over the country the rumor was that the bishop wouldn’t ordain another man until he could ordain a woman…mind you this rumor stayed alive even though he was ordaining men all throughout his episcopate.

I truly believe that many people had a desire to be very masochistic about their prayer experiences…and so they looked for pain and anguish…felt it and blamed it on the bishop.

There was very little reason for some of the slamming that went on about Bishop Ken…the teachings weren’t in error…and they didn’t promote mistrust…he simply said what a large percentage of the faithful were thinking…he’s the only one who had the guts to note that very few catholics were accepting the teaching on birth control…and he didn’t say “change that now”…he said “we have to find out why this isn’t being accepted”…

I’ve rambled on long enough…but the half truths and craziness about a man dead for 3 years just gets a little too strange sometimes.

 

[Tomster]

For what its worth, I remember watching Bishop Gumbleton celebrate the illicit funeral mass (he purposely used invalid matter) for Bishop Untener. There were many bishops and priests in attendance, including Cardinal Maida, in choir dress but they were not vested for the mass and did not concelebrate. Does anyone wonder why?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread moved because it’s not apologetics…
MF

 

[frommi]

For what its worth, I remember watching Bishop Gumbleton celebrate the illicit funeral mass (he purposely used invalid matter) for Bishop Untener. There were many bishops and priests in attendance, including Cardinal Maida, in choir dress but they were not vested for the mass and did not concelebrate. Does anyone wonder why?

(A) - Bishop Gumbleton and Bishop Schoner (sp) were concelebrants…Bishop Imesch was the celebrant and Archbishop quinn was the homilist. Did you take a piece of the bread to “CSI:Adoremus” and get it analyzed or are we just assuming because it had the look of ‘bread’ and not ‘hosts’ that it was invalid matter?

(B) - The reason the Cardinal was in choir dress is that ‘by rank’ if he were to vest for the liturgy he would become the celebrant of the liturgy. This is not uncommon. When a priest dies, often they have a priest-friend of theirs celebrate the mass…the bishop will often do the final commendation (which Cardinal Maida did for Bishop Untener).

 

[setter]

But again, the thread is about why a bland, vague book review and book was allowed to be published in an official newspaper.

As the OP, this thread is about why a warm and collegial endorsement of a known dissident bishop’s book was extended by the moderator of the Curia and vicar general of the Archdiocese of Detroit and Episcopal vicar of the Northwest Region of the archdiocese (Msgr. John Zenz) in the archdiocese sponsored paper. This carries quite the stamp of approval for the faithful flock to read for edification of one’s faith.

It won’t do to just accuse the book and writer of dissent and heresy. YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY what in the book per se, is heretical or wrong, as juxapositioned against, say, the CCC and clear contextual teachings of Vatican II.

In doing so, you will have provided us with an honest look at the book, bishop, and reviewer, as well as Catholic teaching and provided us all with a great opportunity to learn.

I am not blowing any smoke here. I can only conclude that nothing will convince you as you have failed to comment on the excerpt examples that I provided (post #11) from the dissident bishop’s book.

BTW – Do you not grab the fire extinguisher or bother to call the fire department only until the visible flames are licking at your feet?

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040504.asp ~ Karl Keating, founder and president of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic lay-run evangelization and apologetics organization in North America.