Jesuitical Father James Martin, SJ must be livid!
From the Deacon’s Bench:
CHICAGO PASTOR OFFERS APOLOGY FOR THE WAY HE CONDUCTED SAME-SEX BLESSING
You may remember this story from a couple weeks ago: A priest in Chicago last month blessed a same-sex couple,
17 comments:
Definitely forced. Gotta save face for Cardinal "Kiss-Me"'s little pastoral innovation.
He only realized his little oopsie a week later? Even though he said before the sacrilegious simulation of a sacrament, “Please understand that this is not in any way a marriage, a wedding, anything like that. This is just simply a blessing of persons"? And then asked the two women whether they would "love each other as holy spouses" and to live in harmony "forever"? Wearing vestments appropriate for the celebration of a marriage outside of Mass? The exchange of rings? Nope, not a marriage, nothing like that.
Basically, the man wanted plausible deniability in the form of telling them beforehand that it wasn't a marriage or wedding, while making sure he could provide as many of the trappings of a wedding as he could. He just got caught.
What is it about seminary formations in the 1970s that makes some priests think everyone else is so much more dumberer and less sophistie-cated than they are?
Nick
Hard to imagine this not forced on Cupich who then forced it on the Vincentian chapter, and think it likely Cupich will maintain plausible deniability silence, and will not be suprised if then Martin also maintains radio silence in protection of Cupich.....but, will see...they might start eating each other, but doubt it.
Nick, it is because they are sophist-cated, and being clever at twisting words makes them brilliant, they think. Just ask our resident sophist.
Does anybody have first-hand information that Father Williams' mea culpa was "forced"?
Is the notion that Father Williams offered an insincere apology?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, his retraction was published by the Vincentian chapter...
and if you think orders publish random priestly misgivings for widespread dissemination throughout the world...
and in the Archdiocese of one of THE most gay friendly Cardinal Archbishops in the world, and this apology not come from higher up...
then I have a case of guaranteed or your money back asteroid repellant I want to sell you for a VERY good price of $15 per can, and it reminding you of hair spray in odor is purely coincidental, just like the Chicago retraction...
Mark,
It's the risible sequence of "I told them this wasn't a wedding" -> holding a ceremony with the trappings of a wedding, including calling the two women to love each other as spouses -> a week later, having an "immediate realization" that that was wrong and then having the apology consist mostly of his superiors saying he apologizes.
It stretches the limits of plausibility, to say nothing of credibility, to think that one man could dance through those steps without spontaneously combusting, so it is reasonable to suspect that his apology was less than self-initiated (i.e., it was forced).
If only we had video, maybe we could've read the Morse code from Fr. Williams' eyelids.
Nick
More News on Father K Orwell's buddies:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/perus-government-officially-classifies-trans-nonbinary-intersex-as/
Sane countries have had it
Of course, what I want to know, and will never know. is how high up approval went for the ceremony in the first place. Try to celebrate a Latin Mass in Chicago which not on the limited approval list (if there is even one, now), and you would find out right quickly how aware Cupich and his chancery are aware of what goes on in the city of big windy shoulders.
Hard to believe such an ornate ceremony was not known of before it happened, where I wonder if this was a trial balloon floated, and which went over like a lead Hindenburg, and so the published apology with zero sign of discipline, nor any word yet from the chancery or Cupich that this happened at all.
Personally, I would not be suorised if Cupich got a phone call saying, "Bad timing. Francis is busy trying to appear orthodox at the moment...the near future conclave and all, you understand. Not the time to get folk spooled up. Maybe later."
Waiting on Cupich and the chancery to give some sign it actually was a serious lone misstep, and some discipline, such as a transfer. Not holding my breath.
Bob and Nick,
I do not believe that you have first-hand information in regard to the topic at hand. That explains your fanciful collective speculation.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
First-hand information? Who has first-hand information about anything other than what he directly senses? And even then, our recollection of what we sense is surprisingly unreliable.
The publicly available information, from Father Williams' own mouth and the pen of his superiors, is sufficient to draw the conclusion our host Fr. McDonald, Bob, and I have all arrived at. It's called circumstantial evidence, which despite common belief, is the basis of many successful court cases.
Your willful blindness, on the other hand, is the easier, but ultimately disastrous, option. Neither is "see no evil hear no evil" when there is plenty of evil afoot.
Nick
Mark, you and Father K would mimimize a murder caught on camera were it one of your crowd...."how do you know it not altered?"...they admit to the crime and you say, "that's really not what he meant," or, "it likely was forced".
Nothing fanciful as for speculation from people who know how large organizations function, or how they control information flow to protect themselves. The only shocking thing would be if things were NOT ordered as speculated, as a priest did something causing worldwide outrage, and now what has happened?
YOU explain the chancery silence. YOU explain the lack of discipline. YOU should be able to do it, as with this papacy you have had a lot of practice. Wanna keep in practice and warm up with Rupnik?
Nick, you, as well as the folks you mentioned, have, via your collective speculation, drawn a conclusion that has surpassed the public information related to the topic at hand.
Nevertheless, you have insisted that your speculation in question is warranted. Why? Simple reason: You have said so.
You do not have behind-the-scene information related to the situation at hand. Put simply, you have concocted a narrative that has succeeded the available public information.
Bob, should information surface that would confirm your narrative in question, then I would salute you.
=======
In regard to the concoction of a narrative:
Upon the release of Fiducia Supplicans, certain folks here had "read between the lines" to conclude:
-- Cardinal Ambongo had read Pope Francis the "riot act."
-- Cardinal Ambongo had threatened Pope Francis with schism.
-- Pope Francis had been forced to "back down" as he appeased Cardinal Ambongo/the bishops in Africa.
Again, certain folks here insisted that the above narrative was justified as said folks had read supposedly "between the lines."
However, on at least two public occasions, Cardinal Ambongo had shattered the above narrative. The narrative in question has proved preposterous.
Nick, that is among the countless reasons as to why known information has, time and again, within, and without the Church, proved more reliable than speculation.
Again, alert me please should solid information surface to confirm your claims related to Father Williams.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, perhaps you do not know how things work in the Church and the promise of obedience priests make even in the areas of administration. I don’t know if Cardinal Cupich was involved in the forced apology or not. I suspect he was more than happy to leave it to the Vincentians to deal with the priest. And the Vincentians did. There is nothing nefarious or unusual about this and I would think you should be thanking the Vincentians for doing what was necessary in terms of the expectations they have for their priests.
Father McDonald, thank you for your reply.
In regard as to how the Church works:
Father, Father Williams' superiors may have helped him realize his mistake in question. That is fine. What I have found nefarious is the notion that Father Williams tendered an insincere apologize that had been "forced" upon him.
"Father Williams, you will read the following apology that has been forced upon you!"
To "read between the lines" in a given situation is concoct a scenario that exceeds known information. Should speculation prove correct, then so be it.
But I have encountered countless situations in which folks who have "read between the lines" have concocted false narratives. That is why I prefer to read the lines. I will leave it to others to concoct narratives — to "read between the lines."
I accept that which has been presented publicly in regard to Father Williams' situation in question. I would change my mind should reliable information surface to prove otherwise.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
Don't strawman. Nobody is saying that Fr. Williams was told, "you will read the following apology that has been forced upon you!" We're just willing to say, where 2 + 2 + x = 8, x = 4. It's really not that complicated.
Nick
MT priests are given ultimatums all the time and are forced to apologize. In the workplace, I have known of court mandated apologies a priest had to offer by law to a person who initiated a law suit and the bishop informs the priest he must do it. There would have been no apology from this Vincentian if he had not been pressured to do so.
Mark, your willing disbelief in how large organizations (including the world's oldest bureaucracy) works and your demand that it act as it generally never does with complete transparency, shows you are not seeking truth, but only playing word games in seeking to paint what happened in the very best light...
that a lone wolf priest made a boo-boo in one of the tightest run archdiocese in the world, and that his apology was all lone wolf and spontaneous as well. And that his militantly pro-gay archbishop let him be pilloried for performing a lesbian reconfirmation of marriage vows without being a part of it or its retraction, which archbishop never would have allowed the pilloring had it been in his power to prevent.
You only need look at what that archbishop and others DO allow on their turf to know they are no staunch defenders of the Faith. This was purely minor damage control.
STILL waiting on word from the chancery, STILL waiting on word for serious discipline after causing a worldwide scandal....likely neither will happen because this was run from the top and down. Cause that kind of scandal at YOUR place of employment and see what it gets you.
Post a Comment