Buffalo’s bishop resigned today after more than a year of complete turmoil in his diocese and the form of clericalism that allows a bishop to remain while this turmoil is ongoing.
Since there is absolutely no local (diocesan or parish) mechanism to have a set board that would evaluate a situation that has become untenable, others fill the void and create even more chaos.
While I am not in favor of Congregationalist way of hiring and firing pastors, perhaps the Church would do well to examine how Episcopalians and Methodists do it in this country. In the Episcopal Church, there is a Vestry that has some legitimate power in dealing with their rectors and asking the bishop to remove him.
Perhaps the same is needed on the Diocesan level, that a vestry of sorts meets to decide the fate of a divisive bishop or submitting their recommendation to the Pope through the papal nuncio. Of course there must be canons governing all of this and ways to avoid the politicalization the the clergy verses the laity.
Of course canon law states the “rights” of pastors and bishops. This would seem to help safeguard purely evil intentions of vestries.
One other note concerning transparency. Why in the name of God and all that is holy didn’t the papal nuncio or even the pope himself state why Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s beatification has been postponed some 17 days before it was to occur in Peoria?
The Vatican needs to come clean on this, tell us who voiced concerns and what these concerns are as all of this is going to come out one way or another. The Vatican needs to be on top of this and nip speculation and gossip in the bud by being TRANSPARENT!
And while they are working at transparency, let’s also see the secret file on Mr. McCarrick and his enablers in this country and elsewhere even if it goes to the Bishop of Rome, whichever one you wish to choose.
25 comments:
Maybe a "vestry" should be set up in your parish to monitor each and every decision you make.
Maybe it should be given the canonical authority to override your choices and decisions, to make public any and all claims, complaints, or accusations against you, to state publicly your errors, major and minor, for all the world to see.
Maybe you should be required by statute to explain in detail every conversation you have regarding issues, questions, complaints, or other matters that come before you as pastor.
Maybe that would be real transparency.
Maybe. But I'm not holding my breath.
Anonymous K,
As usual, you are mischaracterizing what Father McDonald stated, but if there was a vestry in YOUR parish, you would be gone.
The post=postponement of Archbishop Sheen's beatification is just more of the same treatment he received from the Church while he was alive. He was wildly successful in bringing new people into the Church and was envied by his brother bishops. That is likely why he was never named a cardinal. If any man should have been named a cardinal during his time it was Fulton J. Sheen. Instead, we got power mad time servers, closet homosexuals, and apostates. I could name men in each category, but most of you who are in your 60s or older could name them.
If ANYONE"s beatification should have been postponed (better yet, shelved permanently) it was Paul VI where there was credible evidence of a less than holy personal life floating around for years. Moreover, his "reforms" of the Mass and religious left the Church far weaker and lost millions to the Faith.
Lesson to be learned: if you are successful in spreading the Faith you are punished, if you harm the Faith you get promoted!
It should be noted that Randy Engel's uber-thorough examination of perversion in the priesthood, Rite of Sodomy, is now available online in a PDF file. This is worth mentioning because many of the powerful people who tried to sabotage Archbishopi Sheen in his lifetime are prominently mentioned in the book. Just Google "Rite of Sodmy PDF" and you can download the whole thing in seconds.
TJM:
After reading your bit about Pope Paul's beatification, my first thought was, "I hope Hans Kung outlives our current pope!"
Bee here:
I have no dog in this fight...I don't have any particular devotion to Bishop Sheen, nor do I know one way or the other about the particulars of his life. I do think, however, if his cause has been examined and approved, and a miracle verified (I'm familiar with the story of the miracle and it does seem to be authentic) then it should be made public know who has requested the delay, and the reasons. Because without those items of fact, we can think the decision is purely a political move by those within the Church who did not like him. After all, we saw Cardinal Dolan go to great lengths to stop his move to Peoria, apparently in order to stop the process from going forward. (The reason stated in legal documents just didn't seem to ring true.)
I think this secrecy is just a form of clericalism, and I think if there is a problem we should know what it is.
God bless.
Bee
TJM:
What "credible evidence of a less than holy personal life" of Paul VI are you referring to?
CO, Malone did speak in our diocese and perhaps at Perry when he was Portland's bishop. At the time I found him quite orthodox in his teachings, although I can't remember for the life of me what his subject was or even if it was in Perry, but I presume it was as I could get to Perry from St. Joseph in Macon quite handily.
Victor,
Just type in the internet. What is disturbing is that the Vatican never tried to debunk it, just ignored it, the usual modus operandi
I think we should all have a concern about the streamlining of the canonization process and the quick canonization of modern figures, especially recent popes.
The problem with the lack of transparency in Sheen's case is that in today's climate people jump to the conclusion (and quite frankly I did yesterday) that the skeleton of an abuse claim has surfaced and this is the reason or that he mismanaged the Rochester diocese. I had heard in the 1970's that he wasn't liked by his priests and really did not have good skills as an administrator. Be that as it may, that wouldn't seem to be a reasonable justification to postpone if in the process of leading to the decision to beatify was thorough. The question we must ask, was it thorough.
This is also a concern for future conclaves. Do cardinals have enough information about other cardinals in terms of scandal to make a reasonably moral choice about a future pontiff. What if McCarrick had been elected???????????????????
But the sad thing about Sheen is now the specter of suspicion about his fidelity to celibate chastity is wondered about.
It's probably that 'someone' realized Sheen spoke of an anti-Church being set up, and realized that a beatification might lead people to read up on Sheen.
Father,
What happened to Bishop Malone is a travesty.
In the first part, Bishops are not trained to be CEOs. Malone had none of the personal ruthlessness or duplicitness that has characterized so many "Successful" bishops. Nor, was he trained to be that way.
He came into a Diocese where the corruption ran deep. Bishop "Dead" Head was known to have preferred golf to mass and was absolutely unsupportive of the pro-life movement. Under him. Donald Trautman, later Bishop of Erie and Robert Cunningham, later of Syracuse ran the Diocese and dealt with all of the abuse situations in the 1980s. They made the problems, were promoted and when the problems exploded, Malone found himself holding the bag.
Trautman and Head even offered a bishopric in the early 1980s to my parish priest, Henry Romanowski, if he (Father Henry) would stop preaching pro-life sermons critical of Governor Cuomo.
Henry Mansell - well, that problem at Holy Apostles Seminary in Connecticut started at Christ the King Seminary for the Buffalo Diocese. Mansell was never held accountable for this.
Kmiec who was in their before Malone was creepy and clumsy. He would cancel confirmations, saying he was too busy. Some many problems needed to be dealt with, but if you were pro-life and, as a clergyman, spoke about it too loudly, you were sanctioned by the Bishop.
He was very passive aggressive against Summorum Pontificum. The seminary was a mess, full of priests teaching heresy and error (denial of the divinity of Christ, that masturbation was not a sin, that homosexual behavior was ok).
Malone came along and quietly began to reform things, especially at the seminary. He delegated a lot and trusted to much. He was like the Stewart Kings of England - excellent personal judgment, but all too many horrible advisors that he deferred to. And many of these same advisors broke their fiduciary trust to him. They could get away with it, because Malone was a nice guy, a good guy. In the last two years he began to surround himself with good and holy priests. He was personally very good to me and let me and my family transfer to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. I gave him a St. Michael stone.
Malone was not a malignant Bishop, he made mistakes, but I am not without sin, so I will not judge him. He will be a broken, tired man, now , and needs you and Father Mike Kavenaugh to remember him in a mass
" I had heard in the 1970's that he wasn't liked by his priests and really did not have good skills as an administrator. Be that as it may, that wouldn't seem to be a reasonable justification to postpone if in the process of leading to the decision to beatify was thorough. The question we must ask, was it thorough."
Too right, Father. Saints prove themselves in the crucible of trials and tempatations by demonstrating heroic Christian virtue and uncompromising personal holiness. Many of our saints were despised by the majority of people in their lifetimes. Good skills as an administrator? Pope John Paul II did a dreadful job as an administrator--he was always on the road, instead of minding the store-- and was responsible for appointing many of the horrid bishops that fueled the current debacle, but it would be very hard to question his personal holiness or courage in the face of a hateful world. John XXIII let a bad lot of bishops sabotage his very unnecessary Second Vatican Council, but, again, his personal holiness was quite another matter. The only problem is, sometimes the visible human shortcomings of the beatified and canonized can create serious questions of credibility with a public whose knowledge of the Catholic faith is limited. This is precisely why beatifications and canonizations should NOT be streamlined and expedited. God ALREADY knows who His saints are. Human recognition need not be so rushed.
I don’t think the fact that someone had any particular sin that caused struggle. It seems we should be more concerned and even inspired by how that person dealt with it.
Fr McDonald, I urge caution with too much openness. Not only will we be shocked at Mr McCarrick’s views on our Faith, we will be much more shocked at how many share his views and how compromised the rest of the bishops are. We misunderstand forgiveness, mercy, hypocrisy, and the state of our own souls even immediately after a good confession. I am more inspired in Faith by the person who struggles than the person who followed Our Lord from childhood. So if Bishop Sheen had a sin of the flesh but struggled and confessed that it was against God’s will for him to give in to it freely then he is my sort of saint. He did not furtively work against God and His Law to match teaching to his own behaviour.
Robert,
Malone was surrounded by people who could not keep confidences and lacked discretion. The situation was made compounded by adopting a public relation scheme at the suggestion of lawyers.
The reasons for the delay are not nearly as "cloak-and-dagger" or as "liberal conspiracy" as some want to think.
The decision to delay the beatification is a wise prudential judgment.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/rochester-bishop-requested-venerable-fulton-sheen-beatification-delay-sourc
Can one actually "defame" a character? This is, someone who doesn't give their real name? Who, exactly, is being defamed?
The constant harping and faux surprise that Catholics should notice anything about Francis is very wearing.
Did God give human beings eyes, ears, reason, intelligence, for no reason?
Have we not been warned of false shepherds?
How should one decide who is a false shepherd unless one actually uses that which God has given?
Also, one might argue that posing under a FALSE name is a form of lying.
"Also, one might argue that posing under a FALSE name is a form of lying."
One might argue this, but one would be wrong.
False Name = Kavanaugh
Gee False name, it does of course depend on context. You failed to address the main point however.
You're so snarky, you remind me of Paul Lynde. A LOT like Paul Lynde.
Bee here:
Re Anonymous at December 5, 2019 at 8:36 AM who said "The reasons for the delay are not nearly as "cloak-and-dagger" or as "liberal conspiracy" as some want to think."
In light of the newer revelations about this issue, it seems it IS as "clock-and-dagger" and "liberal conspiracy" as some of us think.
Honestly, Anonymous, have you no shame? How can you defend such dishonesty and corruption in the highest ranks of the hierarchy?
God bless.
Bee
The main point I was addressing was your suggestion that posting anonymously is a form of lying. Posting anonymously is not lying. And saying that in response to your post isn't snarky.
You've already declared where you stand on Pope Francis, so I didn't think it worth my while to say anything about your ranting concerning him.
And what makes you think that you get to determine how people respond to your posts?
Post a Comment