The bishop of my diocese who recently retired almost never visited the seminarians- it seemed to me he hardly even acknowledged them. He just ordained them when it was time. He put habitless nuns who wanted to be priests as administrators of rural parishes, and priests as ministers to the parish who would let the nuns get away with reading the gospel, and giving ‘homilies’, and did not act when hearing complaints of liturgical abuses- which does little to encourage vocations to the priesthood. He promoted all sorts of social justice issues, but seemed to ignore the seminarians. He seemed to ignore complaints of liturgical abuses. He allowed the diocesan paper to run columns that bashed the Church and the priesthood week after week, and he had some of the most liberal priests around teach religion in the diocesan schools. He was a kind person, but he encouraged tolerance of every group except orthodox Catholics, who had been faithful, who were producing the most vocations, and were having the most devout families and active parishes.I’m sorry…but I still feel like when people point out things like this their is an inference that we have bishops who are supressing vocations…which seems unlikely to me.
What accounts for the huge disparity in numbers of ordinations from one diocese to another?I’m sorry…but I still feel like when people point out things like this their is an inference that we have bishops who are supressing vocations…which seems unlikely to me.
It can be a variety of factors…but PURPOSEFUL supression is not one of themWhat accounts for the huge disparity in numbers of ordinations from one diocese to another?
The late Bp. Ken Untener refused to nurture vocations until women would be considered…I’m sorry…but I still feel like when people point out things like this their is an inference that we have bishops who are supressing vocations…which seems unlikely to me.
That’s a bald faced lie, not that I’m surprised you’d stoop to that level to get your point across.The late Bp. Ken Untener refused to nurture vocations until women would be considered…
Hmmmm…That’s a bald faced lie, not that I’m surprised you’d stoop to that level to get your point across.
Wait a second…your source is one unnamed person saying “he doesn’t think he needs priests”.Hmmmm…
loyno.edu/~wessing/docs/keyDatesU.S…html
Scroll to November 1991
supportourdiocese.com/dissentingauthors.htm
Theology Incompatible with the Catholic Faith
(Note - this is from the Archdiocese of Oakland CA, over which our sorely missed Bp. Allen Vigneron presides)
aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/Columns/rose/seekpriests.html
9th paragraph down.
I know he was your hero, but he nearly destroyed the Saginaw Diocese. I’ll accept your apology for calling me a liar.![]()
Your priest sources also go unnamed yet you expect us to accept what you tell us they say. I quote:Wait a second…your source is one unnamed person saying “he doesn’t think he needs priests”.
My original comment towards your statement still stands.
Find a neutral and reputable source, and I’ll listen.
Can somebody please find the text of this article?Find a neutral and reputable source, and I’ll listen.
The statement about vocation suppression was at absolute best misleading. Whether or not that meets your definition of a lie I don’t know.Your priest sources also go unnamed yet you expect us to accept what you tell us they say. I quote:
"I’m surprised that you would call priests of the diocese ‘not credible sources’.
Also, you seem to like to call people liars. It’s typical of you to resort to personal attacks when you don’t like what you read. You owe 2 people apologies now.
So make your point, but do it without namecalling. Detroit Sue provided you links. It’s your opinion as to whether the cited priest was lying, but you still owe Sue an apology.The statement about vocation suppression was at absolute best misleading. Whether or not that meets your definition of a lie I don’t know.
It’s not gonna happen.So make your point, but do it without namecalling. Detroit Sue provided you links. It’s your opinion as to whether the cited priest was lying, but you still owe Sue an apology.
So make your point, but do it without namecalling. Detroit Sue provided you links. It’s your opinion as to whether the cited priest was lying, but you still owe Sue an apology.