This should have been the policy all along and it would have spared the Church the humiliation she is experiencing and protected minors. It is tragic nonetheless:
Jun. 15, 2015 | 01:45 PM
Statement from Archbishop Nienstedt Regarding the Future of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
Date: Monday, June 15, 2015
From Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
In order to give the Archdiocese a new beginning amidst the many
challenges we face, I have submitted my resignation as Archbishop of
Saint Paul and Minneapolis to our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and I have
just received word that he has accepted it. The Catholic Church is not
our Church, but Christ’s Church, and we are merely stewards for a time.
My leadership has unfortunately drawn attention away from the good works
of His Church and those who perform them. Thus, my decision to step
down.
It has been my privilege the last seven years to serve this local
Church. I have come to appreciate deeply the vitality of the 187
parishes that make up the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. I
am grateful for the support I have received from priests, deacons,
religious men and women and lay leaders, especially those who have
collaborated with me in the oversight of this local Church.
I leave with a clear conscience knowing that my team and I have put
in place solid protocols to ensure the protection of minors and
vulnerable adults.
I ask for continued prayers for the well-being of this Archdiocese
and its future leaders. I also ask for your continued prayers for me.
Statement from Bishop Piché Regarding the Future of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
Date: Monday, June 15, 2015
From Bishop Lee A. Piché, Auxiliary Bishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
The people of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis need
healing and hope. I was getting in the way of that, and so I had to
resign.
I submitted my resignation willingly, after consultation with others in and outside the Archdiocese.
It has been a privilege to serve this local Church and I will continue to hold everyone in the Archdiocese in my prayers.
Letter from Archbishop Hebda
Date: Monday, June 15, 2015
From Most Rev. Bernard A. Hebda, Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I am humbled by Pope Francis’ decision to appoint me to serve as
Apostolic Administrator for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
I am grateful for his confidence and I look forward to working with
Auxiliary Bishop Andrew Cozzens and the leadership of the Archdiocese. I
pray that I will be able to be of some service to you, the priests and
faithful of the Archdiocese, as you prepare for the appointment of a new
Archbishop.
Fondly recalling my years as a Bishop in Northern Michigan, where I
first came to know the vibrancy of the faith shared by Catholics of the
upper Midwest, I am hopeful that there will be opportunities to meet
many of you in the weeks ahead. Mindful of Pope Francis’ challenge to
bishops to be true shepherds who walk in the midst of the flock to the
point of developing “ears open to listening to the voice of the sheep
entrusted to their care”, it is my intention to be as available as
possible, while still fulfilling my responsibilities as the Coadjutor
Archbishop of Newark. As the Universal Church prepares to embark on a
Year of Mercy, I look forward to getting to know this local Church and
experiencing in a new context the marvelous ways in which the Lord works
through His people to make His grace and healing presence known and
felt, even in the most challenging of times.
Our loving God frequently finds ways to remind us that even those who
exercise leadership in the Church do so as laborers and not as the
Master Builder: the Church is not ours but Christ’s. While it is always
true that we are merely stewards for a time in a vineyard that is not
our own, the role of an Apostolic Administrator is particularly
temporary. The law of the Church reminds us that an Administrator is not
to introduce change, but rather to facilitate the smooth continuation
of the ordinary and essential activities of the Church, while advancing
those positive initiatives to which the Archdiocese is already
committed. It is my hope that I might be able to be faithful to that
vision so that whenever a new Archbishop is appointed, he will find in
this local Church a vibrant community of missionary disciples that is
growing in its knowledge of the love of Jesus and in its shared
commitment to the Gospel.
For this to happen, I realize that I will need the prayers and
support of you, the priests, deacons, religious, and laity of the
Archdiocese. In this time of transition, please join me in asking for
the intercession of Our Lady of Mercy. May she not only seek God’s
blessings for those who have given themselves to the service of this
local Church in the past, but also draw us ever closer to the Heart of
her Son so that we might more perfectly radiate His healing love in the
days to come.
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Rev. Bernard A. Hebda
Apostolic Administrator
Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis
US Archbishop Resigns After Archdiocese Charged With Coverup
VATICAN CITY — Jun 15, 2015, 6:33 AM ET
By NICOLE WINFIELD Associated Press
The archbishop of St. Paul,
Minnesota,
and a deputy bishop resigned Monday after prosecutors there charged the
archdiocese with having failed to protect children from unspeakable
harm from a pedophile priest.
The Vatican said Pope Francis accepted the resignations of Archbishop
John Nienstedt and Auxiliary Bishop Lee Anthony Piche. They resigned
under the code of canon law that allows bishops to resign before they
retire because of illness or some other "grave" reason that makes them
unfit for office.
Earlier this month, prosecutors charged the Archdiocese of St. Paul and
Minneapolis as a corporation of having "turned a blind eye" to repeated
reports of inappropriate behavior by a priest who was later convicted of
molesting two boys. No individual was named in the indictment.
The resignations came just days after Pope Francis approved the creation
of a new tribunal inside the Vatican to hear cases of bishops who
failed to protect children from sexually abusive priests. Francis'
decision followed years of criticism that the Vatican had never held
bishops accountable for having ignored warnings about abusive priests
and simply moved them from parish to parish rather than report them to
police or remove them from ministry.
In April, Francis accepted the resignation of U.S. bishop Robert Finn,
who had been convicted in a U.S. court of failing to report a suspected
child abuser.
The criminal charges against the archdiocese stem from its handling of
Curtis Wehmeyer, a former priest at Church of the Blessed Sacrament in
St. Paul, who is serving a five-year prison sentence for molesting two
boys and faces prosecution involving a third boy in
Wisconsin.
Prosecutors say church leaders failed to respond to "numerous and
repeated reports of troubling conduct" by Wehmeyer from the time he
entered seminary until he was removed from the priesthood in 2015. The
criminal complaint says many people — including parishioners, fellow
priests and parish staff — reported issues with Wehmeyer, and many of
those claims were discounted.
48 comments:
What a coincidence. Another traditional bishop/archbishop is removed fr office due to covering up sex abuse allegations. Please tell me when you will see the writing on the wall.
My prediction..
Next comes Cordoleone, Paprockie, Morlino, etc.
Let's just face it, the liberals and modernists have won the battle.
I will wait and see who is appointed the next bishop of KC, that will be very telling. How ever I suspect it will be another Church of Nice, don't rock the boat, pastoral warrior (whatever the hell that is), like Cupich.
It's devastating to see the work that Benedict did, be unraveled in such a short period of time.
How does the story go with St. Athanasius? He prayed for the death of Arius before he could destroy the Church. Would it be a sin to do the same for Francis
As dramatic as all this is, the cover-up of unbelief in the Church is far more serious and insidious.
And yet a person like Cardinal Daneels is publicly praised and brought in to be the pope's special deligate and other cardinals are removed and silenced.
A negative person might think that this commission was formed to remove those few remaining bishops who actually teach the Catholic Faith.
What happened to the bishop in Chile who had the mitre ripped from his head and endured a near riot in the cathedral who was appointed by Francis? Oh that's right nothing. That wasn't considered something that might compromise his ability to govern. But Cardinal Burke had to be sent to Siberia because he wears a cappa magna and the priests of Chicago wouldn't like that and he couldn't function as a pastor.
Bishops who have made egregious mistakes in supervising priests who have abused minors (usually teenage boys, but not always) should be held accountable. The scandal that we are still experiencing is basically a failure of leadership of bishops and on a number of fronts, poor screening of seminary candidates, even accepting candidates rejected by other bishops, failure in disciplining priests who abuse not only children, the greatest crime and sin, but also abusing parishes by how they celebrate the liturgy and other sacraments as well as how they minister or don't.
Bishops too seem to be afraid to fire miscreant priests and reassign them to unsuspecting parishes.
The bishops that you name who you think are next do not as far as I know have any record of mismanaging priests who actually are or were accused of sexual misconduct with minors. If they did, they they should worry.
Please name so-called current progressive bishops in the USA who have similar situations of priests on their watch who have abused children and failed to act in a proper way and have had their dioceses stymied by ongoing controversy in the press and litigation in the courts and having been charged with crimes.
"
Please name so-called current progressive bishops in the USA who have similar situations of priests on their watch who have abused children and failed to act in a proper way and have had their dioceses stymied by ongoing controversy in the press and litigation in the courts and having been charged with crimes."
Cardinal Mahoney. Apparently under his leadership things were so bad that he was compared to a Mafia don. His diocese had to pay out almost 1 BILLION dollars in lawsuits. The chancery which was given free of charge to the archdiocese by a pious Catholic had to be sold to pay for the evil of pedophilia. And Mahoney still posseses his rights and title as Cardinal? Why.
Cardinal Mahoney is retired as are most liberal bishops who are as guilty as Finn and The two in Minnesota. Are you saying all od them so also be laizied to include Cardinal Law?
"Bishops who have made egregious mistakes in supervising priests who have abused minors (usually teenage boys, but not always) should be held accountable. The scandal that we are still experiencing is basically a failure of leadership of bishops and on a number of fronts, poor screening of seminary candidates, even accepting candidates rejected by other bishops, failure in disciplining priests who abuse not only children, the greatest crime and sin, but also abusing parishes by how they celebrate the liturgy and other sacraments as well as how they minister or don't."
Wouldn't that last part include the present Bishop of Rome? Should he resign?
There is an online video of a "Tango Mass" in the presence of Cardinal Bergoglio, and as pope he has offered Mass where there was dancing during the liturgy. That is also on video.
If you read the indictment against the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis, and I have read it, you will see that this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Archbishop Nienstedt or Auxiliary Bishop Piche was "traditional."
The fact is that the Archbishop and the Auxiliary did not respond appropriately when presented with incontrovertible evidence that a priest was abusing children. When they did respond, often long after the fact, there was little or no follow-up with the treatment program the priest had been assigned to. Knowing that this man was a threat to children, he was reassigned several times without, apparently, much concern for the well-being of the people in the parishes.
And there are cases, all listed in the indictment, of other priests who were known to be sexual abusers who are either transferred within the Archdiocese or shipped off to nearby dioceses.
I know Bishop Piche - he was the ecumenical officer for the Archdiocese of St.P/M before being named auxiliary. He was a gentle and holy man, self-effacing and kind. That an auxiliary bishop should be assigned the task of overseeing the investigation of his Ordinary is flabbergasting. Who thought that that was going to work?
Turning this into a "witch hunt for "traditional" bishops" is only going to continue to push the real issue to the sidelines. Heaven knows, we cannot allow that to happen any more.
The "Mondale Catholics" in Minnesota are surely rejoicing as they hated Neinstadt from the beginning. His predecessors were so successful in deforming the Church and the laity's perception of the Church that it will take generations to undo the damage. Meanwhile, this most unpapal of papacies continues to extend the 70's well into the 2000's.
Father, haven't you figure it out yet? 99% of us who read your blog do not trust Francis.
Anon - All 11 of you?
That's funny anonymous. I would remind you to take a look at the listing of over 300 followers of this site.
Father, What happens to "retired" bishops who have been muscled out like Nienstedt, Finn, Piche and Martino? Are they just wasted and sent off into some ambiguous retirement, or do they ever get some kind of assignment where they can do parish work or serve some sort of chaplaincy? It seems such a shame to waste the talents of solid priests like these when there are so many mediocre ones in positions of authority.
If retired Archbishop Weakland can keep promoting his gospel of gayness and Cardinal Mahony can continue to pontificate on whatever strikes his fancy and vote in papal elections, there seems to be no reason why these former bishops cannot be put to good use.
Anonymous,
You said, "Father, haven't you figure it out yet? 99% of us who read your blog do not trust Francis." If that's true, then why do you read and comment upon this blog? You clearly do not want to be led by the blog's author any more than you want to be led by the pope. You follow only your own lead, in a fashion typical of our Modern, Post-Enlightenment age.
Indeed, I've noticed that there are two self-confident extremes frequently commenting here: the Moderninsts/Accommodationists on one extreme, and the Integrists/Traditionalists on the other. They comment on blog posts and the comments of sincere Catholics not to seek better understanding, but to attack and destroy. In parishes, the methods of these self-enclosed groups drive away seekers of truth and life, deter participation in the EF Mass, and prevent both effective evangelization and the New Evangelization.
Dialogue, those are interesting allegations that you've made against this particular anonymous poster. I haven't seen any indication that this poster or anyone else here is unwilling to be led by the pope. I have seen many posters here, anonymous and otherwise, express a willingness to be led by the Holy Catholic Church despite what the current pope might be saying and doing. Your conflation of those two ideas is disingenuous, and, since you seem to be a reasonable sort, I suspect you know it.
Moreover, your accusation that this anonymous poster is succumbing to the typical "modern, post-enlightenment age" is also misguided. After all, this accusation could be made against anyone, yourself included. It is a fact that we live in a pluralistic society where we are confronted with massive amounts of information and ideas. It is necessarily true that everyone has selected their ideology in some pluralistic way -- you are a convert to the Catholic faith, if I recall correctly. At some point, you made a choice to submit yourself to the Catholic faith. That submission was rooted in your post-enlightenment freedom to make such a choice in our pluralistic society. Would you say that, now that you have made that choice, each subsequent moral or religious choice you have made is equally pluralistic? I suspect you wouldn't -- you would say that you are subjecting yourself to some objectively and independently existent Truth, that is the Catholic faith.
I hope you can see, then, that all of us believe that we are submitting to an objectively existent Truth as found in the Catholic Faith (except the modernists among us, of course). Those here who are criticizing the pope are doing so on that basis, not because they are not submitting to the pope, but because they are submitting to the Catholic faith as it has plainly been explained throughout the centuries.
Surely you can see the good faith in one who is legitimately concerned that the pope is distorting the faith? Having that concern can come from no other place than a love for the Church and a desire to see Her "liberty and exaltation" come to fruition. If you truly believe that this pope is not saying and doing problematic things, you are certainly entitled to believe that. But, perhaps you should give those who are troubled by what they see the benefit of the doubt by recognizing that they are concerned about the Church and not out to simply "bash the pope."
Finally, with regard to your idea that people who speak plainly drive others away, perhaps that is your experience. My experience is to the contrary. People generally appreciate clarity. If you clearly explain the faith and people enter it, they have entered it purely and knowingly. On the other hand, if you present something muddled and watered down and people enter the Church, what have they actually entered? Evangelization, by necessity, must be clear. Otherwise, it is a lie.
I am the anonymous who made the (admittedly unsubstantiated) assertion that 99% of the people who read this blog do not trust our current pope.
Lefebvrian does a nice job of defending me, but speaking for myself: I do not attack the pope. As much as I can in good conscience, I obey this pope (in fact, I can't think of anything he's taught that where I've disobeyed him--largely because his teachings are so ambiguous). I do not hate this pope. I simply do not trust him.
Does that really make me a post-modern, pseudo enlightened individualist? I don't think I'm in a "confident" extreme, as it tears me up to be in this position. I feel like I am walking a tightrope, trying to respect the office of pope, while gleaning everything I read from a pontiff who seems to be out-of-control at times. I pray for him and his intentions every day. I just don't trust him. I suspect many readers here also cannot bring themselves to trust him.
I am sure that there are many people who have family members that they love, try to help and pray for every day, yet cannot bring themselves to trust entirely.
Is that a sin?
Lefeb - "Surely you can see the good faith in one who is legitimately concerned that the pope is distorting the faith?"
But that's not what we see - at all. When you and other like minded folks assert that, "...those attending Traditional chapels are taught that the dialogue Mass is a liturgical abuse and that the people should not be saying the responses" you are claiming to yourself and "Traditional" priests an authority you and they simply do not have. This is not the action by people who have a legitimate concern, but by those who have rejected the authority of the Pope to regulate the liturgy.
When you or others assert, "The idea that everyone needs to be saying the same thing at the same time is simply not the spirituality or practice of the Traditional Mass" ignores the fact that, for centuries, the participation of the people in the pews was seen as inconsequential, as unconnected to the Sacrifice being offered, as something you could have if you wanted or not have if you wanted.
When you or others say, "they are submitting to the Catholic faith as it has plainly been explained throughout the centuries" is based on the erroneous assumption that there is no legitimate development of doctrine, including liturgical doctrine, that can and does shape how we celebrate mass.
No, you are not expressing legitimate concerns. You are demanding the right to make decisions that are not yours to make.
Nest they need to go after Dolan for leaving abusers in place in Milwaukee. He did not want to "rock the boat" so he could get to New York.
Fr Kavanaugh, I don't think the participation of the people in the pews was considered inconsequential as a policy, although some clergy may have had that contempt individually. The various sections of the Mass have various objectives and purposes: e.g. sometimes we pray for the living, sometimes we pray for the dead. Their names are not in the Ordinary or variable parts; I alone must call their names while the priest offers the prayer that leads my petition to the ears of God. My goal is to prepare for Mass and participate by providing the petitions and offerings the priest refers to in his prayer. I have prayers I am expected to know by heart and responses to make in conversation with the priest. My participation is different but real and I hope to make it both complementary and supplementary to the prayer of the Preist.
Fr. Kavanaugh, I believe everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches, and I humbly submit to the Magisterium of the Church in its entirety.
Anonymous, I sympathize with your last post (and all your posts). Those who are throwing around accusations of schism are failing to recognize the mental anguish that comes with the recognition of the problematic sayings and actions coming from Rome. Far from rejoicing in these things, it is troubling to be in a position where one is set up in some sort of opposition to the pope. Unfortunately, God has not promised us a lack of crosses -- in fact, he promised us the exact opposite. Better to accept those crosses than to avoid them by refusing to accept reality.
We have to recognize that obedience is not a higher virtue than faith. And so we continue in the faith, even if the pope, all the bishops, all the clergy, and every other person on earth rejects it.
Nicely put, Lefebvrian. It is not just a few "traditionalists" on this blog, either. There is widespread concern on other Catholic blogs and forums, and on conservative political forums with a number of Catholic members. They are all suspicious of this Pope, do not trust him, and suspect that "pastoral practice" is the new name for apostasy.
Christ is the Head of the Church, not the Pope. The Pope is his Vicar. Vicars screw up and sometimes do stupid stuff. When they do, the Pastor must deal with it. I suppose, in the case of a Pope, the Magisterium is the only corrective. Like Anonymous said, I would be happy to follow this Pope if he would provide some actual leadership instead of curious behavior.
Lefebvrian:
“I humbly submit to the Magisterium of the Church in its entirety. . . . [O]bedience is not a higher virtue than faith. And so we continue in the faith, even if the pope, all the bishops, all the clergy . . . rejects it.”
So, you humbly submit to the Magisterium except when you don’t. And when is that? When_you_decide the Magisterium has got it wrong.
Clergy all run the risk of damning in broad strokes. I feel the sting when the Pope, any of them, decry some injustice and everyone assumes I am killing the environment, enslaving emmegrants, starving children and forcing progressives to kneel on cold marble floors. But the Popes come from different cultures, even different worlds when I consider what little I have seen in South America or have only read of 1940s Germany. I wonder if the man that is Pope can conceive of my situation any better than I can his? I think he is close, but still a little off. I think, to some degree, this is the heart of clericalism and I sensed it even in Benedict's writings on the economy. But I love Benedict, and I think if Pope Francis can live long enough to see how he has been manipulated I think he will rise near to Benedict's mark. I wish they would speak more on principle and of how the Christian and Catholic pursues life and vocation then let me tie the art to the science and be judged for how I do it.
Anonymous 2, those two statements of mine that you quoted aren't contradictory...
Lefebvrian:
Please explain how they are not contradictory – you know, like I was a 4 year old.
Anonymous 2, The Magisterium isn't simply the pope, bishops, and clergy existing at the present time. I hope that helps.
Lefeb - Do you humbly submit to the legitimate authority of popes to establish the Novus Ordo? Do you humbly submit to the legitimate authority of popes to invite Christians of other denominations to assist them in helping understand how the papacy can better serve the unity of Christians? Do you humbly submit to the legitimate authority of the pope (and bishops) to teach that other Christian denominations have been used as means of salvation for the members of those ecclesial communities?
I suspect not, but here's your chance...
Could someone (like the author of this blog) again, PLEASE tell us what becomes of these bishops who "retire" early? Are their talents just being wasted so the Progressivocracy can maintain its supremacy? Better yet, WHY do liberal bishops have such high profile retirements and why do the conservative or traditional bishops seem to evaporate into nothingness?
Please address this question. It's worth examining.
Lefebvrian:
It helps but it is also what I thought you would say – distinguishing the magisterium from the Magisterium or the current Magisterium from the Magisterium “in its entirety.” And it really isn’t an answer because: Who gets to decide whether current magisterial pronouncements are “true” Magisterial pronouncements or are in accordance with the pronouncements of the Magisterium “in its entirety”? – You do. So, it all leads back to you and others who think they know better than the current Magisterium.
I am not even saying you might not be right on the merits. Who knows? The answer is above my pay grade. What I am saying is that you should acknowledge what you are really doing and not hide within semantics.
For me, I will throw in my lot with the current Magisterium and let God judge me for doing so and you for not doing so. Perhaps we will both receive a merciful judgment. Again, who am I to judge?
The Magisterium is a continuum, like time/space. There is no "current" Magisterium.
Anonymous 2, all I can tell you is that you seem not to have a very good grasp on what the Magisterium is and how Tradition works. Perhaps doing further study on these topics would be a nice project for you during your summer break. For my part I do not have the time to go through this with you, nor is this the appropriate venue to do so. But I hope you will undertake the study so that you can come to a better understanding of the things that we have been discussing. Perhaps once you've had a chance to do so, we can take up this discussion again. Until then, I don't believe it to be profitable for us to continue this conversation.
I'd recommend you acquire and study The Binding Force of Tradition and Topics on Tradition, both authored by Fr. Chad Ripperger Ph.D. You might also explore The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.
I need to go on a little bit of a rant here, and I'm not apologizing for it...
a. The diocese was charged (not convicted) of a cover up. It seems to me instead of being a innocent until proven guilty situation, rather it's the opposite...it's guilty until proven innocent. What's going to happen if the diocese is shown to not have covered up anything? It's going to be complete egg on the face. It is the complete opposite of what our country was founded on. It is just like the witch hunts of old, accuse someone, end their lively hood, and they will never be able to recover from the accusation. It is a permanent black mark that no one is able to undo (no matter how much is done to restore a good name). Everyone has a right to be innocent until proven guilty, everyone this includes our bishops have a right to be innocent until proven guilty.
b. Let's not kid ourselves, Abp N has been public enemy number one in his archdiocese since stepping in. He has been one of the leaders in defending Catholic teaching in the public square in particular moral teachings of the Church. If you think his enemies were not looking for this chance to get him, you've got to be kidding yourself. Minnesota is not exactly a conservative's paradise, the archdiocese was a hotbed for liberalism before he came in. To think that this did not play a role at all...people will find anything to hate against Christ and His Church, in particular through those that represent Him.
c. Living in the Archdiocese of LA, I can speak a bit more on Cardinal Mahony's situation. Yes, he did cover it up, just like Cardinal Law did (both should be deposed by the way). The only difference between the two, Cardinal Mahony has the liberal media around LA in his pocket, and Cardinal Law did not. He wasn't called "Roger the dodger" TM for no reason. It's because he was effectively able to avoid prosecution even though the evidence was there to convict him. It is not without coincidence that one of his auxillaries Gabino Zavala was found out for having a child sometime during his appointment under Mahony's reign, and it took Abp Gomez to bring this to public light and get him (Zavala) kicked out. Mahony, Daneels and ilk should have been kicked out the college decades ago. But Rome is like a near infinite mass. It is extremely difficult to accelerate and to get it to move.
d. The Pope is indeed the Pope, but he is not God, and is not impeccable. It's hard to take him seriously when he's appointing Daneels, approving the publication of the heterodox material in the relatio, constantly mocking the faithful. This of course doesn't mean that he doesn't do good things as well. He has been quite strong in denouncing gender theory, as well as pointing out that usury is still a sin. The progressives that he's defrocked or "retired early" have been less than the traditional or conservatives...this is true....But more importantly is that we need to pray for everyone here involved. The archdiocese, the Bishops, the clergy, and peaceful solution.
Pax
Bishops can be laized but it is rare. The most recent was the Vatican ambassador to Hondorus who has abused minors. He is going to be placed on trial at the Vatican for his crimes but there is outrage that he isn't sent to the country where he committed the crimes to stand trial and experience prison conditions there.
Those who retire for mismanagement or are asked to resign are still bishops. Cardinal Law became the administrator of the major basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. I saw him at several papal Masses concelebrating (now retired) with the pope. Benedict gave him the cushy job in Rome.
Other bishops and I suspect all three of the most recent to resign can help out in the dioceses they choose to live with confirmations and the like. Some can take teaching positions and the such. I have no problem with it. If a major sin or scandal is involved, I do think there should be a kind of public penance and reconciliation.
The bishop of Palm Beach who was removed from his position for child abuse (statue of limitations ran out so he couldn't be prosecuted (happened before he became bishop, but while he was a priest and in a seminary setting) lives in a monastery now.
Many good comments. Cardinals Law and Mahoney are retired. No one has named for me any currently reigning progressive bishop in this country who have similar situations to that of the three most recent bishops to resign. By that I mean litigation concerning mismanagement of priests during their time as bishops. I am not aware of any.
Anon 2 - It is Lefeb who needs a "nice" summer refresher course on Catholic basics, not you.
Lefeb thinks that Tradition "works" by arriving at a certain point and stopping. No development, no evolution, no refinement, no further understanding of Revealed Truth. In this, Lefeb is very wrong.
Lefeb thinks that, if he/she finds some aspect of the Church's doctrine not to his/her liking, he/she can run to an older document and "prove" that the current expression of doctrine is "modernist" or "abusive." In this, Lefeb is very wrong.
Lefeb thinks that he/she has the authority to determine what is / what is not Catholic doctrine. This is Lefeb's greatest error. It is the error of the Protestant Reformers - assuming the charism of Teaching the Faith that belongs, by Divine authority, to the Apostles and their successors, aka, the Bishops.
Lefeb - Do you humbly submit to the legitimate authority of popes to establish the Novus Ordo? Do you humbly submit to the legitimate authority of popes to invite Christians of other denominations to assist them in helping understand how the papacy can better serve the unity of Christians? Do you humbly submit to the legitimate authority of the pope (and bishops) to teach that other Christian denominations have been used as means of salvation for the members of those ecclesial communities?
I suspect not, but here's your chance...again.
Father, I can name for you a currently reigning Abbot, who similar to a bishop, is the head of a local order. That would be Abbot Klausen the at the Benedictine monastery in Collegeville, Minnesota. As you know it is a hotbed of progressivism but the media is not interested enough in them even though there are juicier stories there.
As for Archbishop Nienstedt, he had a target on him even before he arrived here in Minneapolis from New Ulm where he fixed what the previous ultra-liberal bishop had done. He has similarly done much good in this archdiocese but his support for the marriage amendment is what enraged progressives and cafeteria catholics and ultimately did him in. I sat in on a parish lynch mob where there I experienced seething hate for him. The people wanted their witch to be burned and he was.
For the past year and a half I have read as much as I could on the case that the media used against the archbishop. Minnesota Public Radio is as bad as the rest of the media in their sensational headlines and misleading captions, but they do have a great timeline and the actual dispositions if one cares to get to the heart of the matter. Basically it comes down to the archbishop taking advice from two people, unfortunately, he listened to the wrong one. The two are the former Chancellor and Canon lawyer, Jennifer Hasleberger, and the former Vicar General under the previous two archbishops who served as the abuse expert under Nienstedt, Fr. Kevin McDonough. He also happens to be the brother of Obama’s chief of staff and has another brother who is, or was, a gay priest who taught in the seminary here. (another interesting story) It was McDonough who was involved in all of the real moving and protecting of abusive priests over the decades who should be removed from serving as a priest and possibly prosecuted for some of the things he did. But again, he is a progressive, and there is no interest in going after progressives is there?
Vianney1100
Vianney 1100, everything you say is correct and especially about Collegeville. The Archbishop of St.Paul, etc did a wonderful job concerning marriage and yes, there was hatred for him and from Catholics no less, for doing so. This tells you the state of the Church and we need an encyclical about the climate change in the Church that is destroying it from within. Hopefully it will come one day.
However, despite all the good accomplished in many areas, unfortunately the good Archbishop failed with the degenerate priest in question and when you read his legal rap sheet and how the Archbishop handled him, one is left scratching one's head. In other words, he himself gave the dagger to his opponents and they used it.
I do wish in accepting the forced resignation of a bishop the Vatican would highlight the good that was accomplished while stating why the resignation was demanded or accepted. It would have been a golden opportunity for the Vatican to thank the Archbishop for his defense of marriage and say they will look for another archbishop to continue that mission. But no, this did not happen and it is a scandal too.
Fr. Kavanaugh, do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?
I suspect not, but here's your chance... again.
Lefeb - I believe all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God.
Now, about your "humble submission" to the Church's authority...
Come to think of it, Lefeb, when Kavanaugh said that question was a "trap" when the first blogger asked him, he may have been correct…and, you may need to go to confession for tempting Kavanaugh to sin either by lying or publicly denying Christ. So, I guess it is a "trap." I'll pray for you…which I do, anyway.
Fr. Kavanaugh - I believe all that the Church teaches to be revealed by God.
Lefeb - But you deny the pope's authority to change the mass, you deny the pope's authority to invite the assistance of Protestants in revitalizing the papacy to be a better servant to all Christians, and you deny that Protestant denominations are used by God as a means of salvation.
Sorry, your statement of belief doesn't square with your denials of the Church's authority.
Fr. Kavanaugh - Your statement of belief doesn't square with your denials of the Church's doctrine.
Lefeb - I have made no statement of belief that doesn't square with the Church's doctrine while you have. Examples: You call the NO an abuse, you deny the teaching on the Protestant churches being a means of salvation, and you reject the pope's authority to ask for assistance from Protestants in making the papacy a better servant of all Christians.
Now, if you can show me statement in which I have rejected the Church's authority, I'd love to see them.
Fr. Kavanaugh, If "Protestant churches (sic)" are a means of salvation and you believe that my beliefs are not Catholic (or Protestant), then why are you arguing with me about my beliefs? Is Traditional Catholicism not a "means of salvation" just like Protestantism, according to you?
Lefeb - I'm not arguing with you, I am pointing out where your assertions are not Catholic. Catholicism is the best means of salvation, but not the only means of salvation. That's what the Church teaches and I, being Catholic, believe what the Church teaches.
Fr. Kavanaugh - Whew! That's a relief!
So the score here is this: You don't think I believe what the Church teaches, and I don't think you believe what the Church teaches. Instead of going around in more circles, I'm going to declare this conversation at an end. If you want to continue lobbing rash judgments in my direction and telling me I'm not a Catholic because I don't believe what you believe about false ecumenism, etc., please do so in a more recent post since I am going to stop checking this one. Thanks.
Father Kavanaugh:
About the Church's teaching on the Protestant religious communities being a means of salvation. Is it not Church teaching that the salvation given to those Protestants and others resullts from the graces flowing from God to and through the Holy Catholic Church? That way there is no conflict with "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". The Catechism puts it thus,""all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body".
Father Kavanaugh:
Thank you for your intervention at 7:48 a.m. Lefebvre (and Jolly Angry Genesenist) know very well what I mean by the phrase “current magisterium.” As you and I both seem to think, Lefebvre simply does not want to admit that he is setting himself up as the ultimate interpreter of Catholic teaching and thus as his own magisterium (I assume from the tone and the rhetorical tactics employed that Lefebvre is more likely to be male than female). That is why his belittling response at 9:32 p.m. yesterday uses the fallacious red herring argument ad hominem and continues to hide within semantics. I trust, however, that readers are intelligent enough to see through such abusive and bogus rhetorical tactics. But, of course, when all else fails, there always remains the tactic of unilaterally declaring the conversation at an end.
Lefebvre:
I repeat what I said yesterday (I thought in a spirit of amity) but now with the circumlocution that seems so important to you and Jolly Angry -- For me, I will throw in my lot with the current Magisterium (i.e., those in whom the magisterial authority is currently vested) and let God judge me for doing so and you for not doing so. Perhaps we will both receive a merciful judgment. Again, who am I to judge?
Post a Comment