Another problem bishop

Some critics of the Pope are suggesting that the Vatican is open to the hard-liners on the right, but closed and cold to the warm-hearted forward-looking progressive thinkers on the left.

The Pope is willing to bend over backward for Bishop Williamson, while those over on the righteous long-suffering progressivist side are treated sternly.

How many times did Rome try to reconcile Bp. Milingo?

I forget.

I’m just askin’….

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'.... Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Another problem bishop

  1. Gravitas says:

    Maybe if the pope would have officiated his wedding he wouldn’t be seen as such a mean guy.

  2. CDN Canonist says:

    I don’t see how it is helpful to speak of “left” or “right,” as if these terms represent cohesive movements or ideologies. Yes, it is true that reconciliation was attempted with Milingo numerous times, but the correspondence between the Holy See and Lefebvre is also plentiful. I think the Holy See is fairly consistent in its attempts at reconciliation.

  3. Fabrizio says:

    Father,

    the definitive answer to such babbletalk was given already 20+ years ago by some J. Ratzinger, then Prefect of CDF

    “In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the Traditionalist rebellion. The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere empty words. Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the postconciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.

    There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations.”

    http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=54661

  4. Matt Callihan says:

    “…closed and cold to the warm-hearted forward-looking progressive thinkers on the left.”

    This is hilarious! The “progressive thinkers on the left” have had the ear of Rome for over 40 years. It’s because Rome listened to these “warm-hearted” people that we are now in the mess we are in.

  5. Jerry says:

    Archbishop Milingo used to be a very respected conservative and one of the only known bishop to conduct exorcisms. It seems he lost one. That’s probably why the Vatican has declared the consecrations he did as invalid.

  6. Carlos Palad says:

    “Archbishop Milingo used to be a very respected conservative and one of the only known bishop to conduct exorcisms…”

    Exorcisms that did not exactly follow the norms of the Roman Catholic Church

  7. Robert says:

    Let’s not forget the bishops of the Chinese Patriotic Association (can’t get much closer to the “left” than that) who have been quietly reconciled with Rome. This would have involved them asking for and receiving remission of the excommunications they incurred for having been illicitly consecrated.

    Did the media ever scrutinize past statements of any of these bishops to see if any of them had ever made statements sympathetic towards Chairman Mao, whose regime’s “death toll” totals over 70 million murders?

  8. Magdalene says:

    Considering the extreme damage done to any number of dioceses, only retirement seems to rid the faithful of a bad bishop. Or if the civil authorities can pin something on him. A number of bishops ahve very good lawyers though.

  9. TerryC says:

    I must agree. The Holy See has been much too cold hearted to the progressive liberals on the left. It has allowed them to persist in heresy, for decades in some cases, in almost total disregard for the salvation of their souls. Had the Vatican been exhibiting the care and pastoral concern to the progressive that it has shown to the SSPX then most of them would have by now recanted their heretical beliefs, though I don’t doubt a few would have had to experience the same long period of excommunication of the SSPX bishops before returning home in humility.