Sometime you have to perform an autopsy to find the cause of death. It’s messy but interesting.
And so we come to the strange case of Richard McBrien.
Luckily for us, he cuts is own cranium open for us and shows us what happened.
Let’s snap on our gloves and probe for just a moment with my emphases and comments.
The papal envoy sent to move the U.S. church
by Richard McBrien on Mar. 02, 2009Archbishop Jean Jadot died in his native Belgium on January 21. He was 99.
For many readers, the name of Jean Jadot does not ring the proverbial bell. Others, however, are reminded of a different, better time in the recent history of the Catholic Church. For still others, the Jadot name generates negative rather than positive thoughts. [Which do you think McBrien feels?]
Jean Jadot served as apostolic delegate to the United States (the position has since been upgraded to that of nuncio) from 1973 to 1980. During that time, he recommended the appointment of just over 100 new bishops and the assignments of 15 archbishops. Pope Paul VI almost always accepted those recommendations.
Most of Jadot’s appointments were unusually good, some less so. A limited sample (and I stress the adjective "limited") of those on the first list include: [Get this list…] Howard Hubbard (Albany), Francis Hurley (Anchorage), William Borders (Baltimore), Patrick Flores (El Paso and then San Antonio), Joseph Imesh (Joliet), Michael Kenny (Juneau, Alaska), John J. Sullivan (Kansas City, Missouri), Rembert Weakland (Milwaukee), Peter Gerety (Newark), Raymond Lucker (New Ulm, Minnesota), John Cummins (Oakland), Walter Sullivan (Richmond), Matthew Clark (Rochester), Francis Quinn (Sacramento), Kenneth Untener (Saginaw, Michigan), John May (St. Louis), John Roach (St. Paul and Minneapolis), John Quinn (San Francisco), Raymond Hunthausen (Seattle), Frank Harrison (Syracuse), and William Skylstad (Yakima, Washington, later bishop of Spokane). [Scary, when you see it as a list.]
…
[skipping down… blah blah skipping…]
…When one carefully reviews the list of bishops whom Archbishop Jadot recommended for the episcopacy or for promotion within it, it becomes clear that his choices were, for the most part, of good priests who were ruled more by their pastoral hearts and their pastorally-grounded judgments than by rigid ideologies or hopes for career advancement.
One might ask if that is still the case today.
Indeed.
Again, we see the usual liberal/progressivist false dichotomy of "pastoral" and "rigid".
Frankly, with a notable exception or two – false men in places I hold dear – the most agressively ambitious priests I have ever met have been the liberals. They will do anything to anyone to get ahead.
Loading ...
“Luckily for us, he cuts is own cranium open for us and shows us what happened. Let’s put on our gloves and probe for just a moment”
To quote my then grade school daughter EEEEWWWWWW yuck
I always thought that the word “pastoral” is almost always used as being synonymous with “permissive” – giving people the idea they can do whatever they feel like without having to be concerned about any sort of accountability before God. The liberal way of getting around this reality is to immediately set up the false dichotomy of “pastoral” vs. “rigid”.
Father, is that final quote box supposed to be McBrien’s comments, or yours? and, yeah, the “pastoral” adjective is a pc term, is it not. sigh.
Good Lord. So HE’S the one. Look at that list of bad episcopal bargains.
Look at how many local churches were destroyed, and how many Catholics lost their faith due to this one man. May God have mercy.
A lot of those men probably seemed like reasonable choices at the time, although some had giant red flags hidden in their backgrounds. Incompetence, bad luck, or bad responses to power by the individuals themselves are as likely as bad faith by the chooser.
Anyway, I agree that the word “pastoral” ought to sue for misrepresentation. It’s supposed to mean actions that are part watchman against wolves and straying, and part farmer of souls.
Poor Richard, so agenda-driven…
like i say, liberalism is a cult and a sin. The devil was the first liberal.
For the liberal left, these perfidious (meaning Godless) people, may God remove filth and gunk from the hearts of these a-historical bigots.
Peter Gerety of Newark, wasn’t he the bishop with whom Fr. Paul Wickens clashed over sex ed in Catholic schools? His wikipedia entry says he is the oldest living bishop, consecrated in 1966. Would that have been the EF or NO rite of consecration? I didn’t think there were any bishops left whomhad been consecrated according to the old rite (SSPX and sedes excluded).
Kenneth Untener was “unusually good”??!! It appears Fr. McBrien’s difficulties must be due to a fundamental inability properly to comprehend “the good”.
Although, it might truthfully be said that the goodness of these appointments was “unusual”.
A couple questions from a theology undergraduate at McBrien’s own University of Notre Dame.
1.) If Archbishop Jadot’s appointments were so pernicious for the American Church, why were they almost all accepted by Paul VI? Is McBrien’s claim that Paul VI “almost universally accepted” these appointees accurate?
2.) Most certainly, the tired dichotomy of “pastoral”/”rigid” employed by liberals is worn out and destructive to the spiritual well-being of American Catholics, but is there a reason why Catholic conservatives are always perceived as rigid, beyond the labeling performed by liberals? It seems that, without betraying the concepts of God’s judgeship over the world and all human lives and human accountability which comes concomitantly with freedom, there would be better ways, more creative methods for encouraging the practice of the Christian life in the modern world. We live in new, different and challenging times, and Catholic young people don’t have the aid of a “Catholic subculture” to confront the modern world. Vocation, destiny, mission all certainly have their place somewhere within this milieu.
It just so often seems to me that conservative reactions to (ridiculous) liberal banter tend to reinforce the common perception of such individuals as being rigid. Where is the spirit of creativity? Where are those who are inspired by the words, “Behold I make all things new?” As a young Catholic, I feel like both conservatives and liberals – and even the very USE and ACCEPTANCE of such a dichotomizing labels – have failed me in my faith formation.
PS – I avoid registering for McBrien’s classes like the plague. I’m no more of a fan of his than most here are.
And sorry about the typoes, grammatical errors and such. I was in a huff and a hurry.
Concerning Howard Hubble– I recall the Wanderer’s excellent series “The Agony in Albany”
The greatest persecution the Church has seen since Diocletian has come at the hands of liberal bishops.
“Rembert Weakland (Milwaukee)”
Really, McBrien, really? I mean, seriously?
Fr. Z: Again, we see the usual liberal/progressivist false dichotomy of “pastoral” and “rigid”.
A phenomenon prevelent in the post Vatican II period that is a not-too-distant cousin to the equally false dichotomy of “pastoral vs dogmatic” that is at times applied to the Council itself, wouldn’t you say?
Again, yikes. Anyone who thinks Hunthausen was a good choice has got some serious problems.
Back in 1994, The Wanderer Press ran a 10 part series on Bishop Hubbard entitled: Agony in Albany. 15 years later and the agony continues. Mandatory retirement is just under 5 years from now.
Those who may be interested, here is a link to the Agony in Albany series (revisited): http://www.rcf.org/pdfs/AMDG%20Agony%20in%20Albany%20RevisitedMay%2004.pdf
Please pray for Bishop Hubbard and ALL bishops, priests and religious.
Anytime I read the word “pastoral” being used as a way of challenging the truth of the faith, I say out loud: “The Truth is always Pastoral!”
Fr. Philip, OP
Justin,
1. I think Paul VI trusted his subordinates too much, I think he wanted to promote a greater sense of collegiality, and I think he was weak. Hence, he allowed terrible bishops to be appointed. He himself thought, later in his pontificate, that the “smoke of Satan” had filled the Church.
2. What would you propose as being one of these “better, more creative” ways of (expressing? teaching?) Catholicism that “conservative” Catholics aren’t embracing? I would say that John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is an example of a beautiful and incredibly dynamic, new expression of the traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality, yet I don’t see any liberals embracing it–it’s all “conservatives.” I think what we are mostly complaining about are the scandalous practices these bishops allowed, the liberal priests they ordained, the damage they did to the liturgy, the dilution of any substantial teaching from religious education, etc. These bishops appointed under Jadot were proponents of novel and untraditional approaches to the Catholic faith (many of which were, at some points, not consonant with the Magisterium), and their dioceses (and American Catholicism in general) are now in a state of utter ruin because of it. Huge numbers of Catholics don’t even know the basic truths of the Faith; huge numbers of Catholics don’t practice their religion in a meaningful way. Catholics are just as likely to contracept as non-Catholics, they vote for radically pro-choice politicians as often as they vote pro-life, the divorce rate is huge, Catholic kids are more likely (statistically) to lose their religion at Catholic colleges than at non-Catholic colleges, the rates of vocations to priesthood and religious life are terribly low when compared to the preconciliar Church…I don’t think I need to continue.
Show me liberals who are enthusiastic about Benedict’s books and encyclicals, which are remarkably fresh, modern, and imbued with an authentic Catholicism. Show me liberals who love the Theology of the Body, or any of John Paul’s numerous encyclicals, books, etc. Show me liberals who love the Catechism, which is really a beautiful and fresh expression of the Catholic Faith (read it in conjunction with the old Roman Catechism and you’ll see the difference, though essential unity, between the two).
I’d also venture that many commenters here have family members and loved ones, maybe even children or parents, who fell away from the Faith as a result of the liberal teaching of the Jadot crowd and the priests that those men ordained. My father’s whole family (with the exception of my father and his mother, who returned to the faith about 20 years after leaving it) did. Forgive us, then, if we’re more than a little disgusted by the people Jadot appointed.
PS – I’m also an ND undergrad.
“the most agressively ambitious priests I have ever met have been the liberals. They will do anything to anyone to get ahead.”
Because they know if they succeed they’ll enjoy the sinecure of office, often until death, and that beats the life of a holy mendicant any day.
Think Card. Mahony would go back to organizing migrant workers from the fields?
http://www.takimag.com/site/print/485/
What a list!!! It’s incredible that one wouldn’t even have to be a faithful priest or layman who knows something about the Church to recognize the folly. Even a secular journalist (who might even be an atheist) could examine the dioceses of those bishops during their reign (and in some cases even today) and see the fruit they produced! Alert! Obrien, those good ole days are over! Kyrie, eleison.
If Archbishop Jadot’s appointments were so pernicious for the American Church, why were they almost all accepted by Paul VI?
A really good question. I’ve wondered for almost 40 years about the apparent gap between intentions (surely good) and results (mostly disastrous) in Pope Paul’s actions. The untold story of this tragic pope must be the greatest mystery of the twentieth century. Surely someone knows the truth, and I wonder why it hasn’t been told yet.
That list is the modern-day version of the Plague of Locusts.
Now let’s see, how “pastoral” and “kind” was Cardinal Villot, SOS to Paul VI and … to JPI.
Between reading of McBrien and Kung today my head is spinning. Reading the list of episcopal appointees that Jadot influenced by submitting their names to the Pope makes my head spin.
How can McBrien make such statements? How can any “progressive”? Doesn’t the history of American Church coiunt for anything with these guys? How can they be blind to the last 40 years?
My fifth grade catechism students have more sense than McBrien.
We can only pray that the Holy Spirit will illumine their hearts and make them see the error of their ways.
I dare Father McBrian to bring this list to the
next VOTF/SNAP meeting. Many of these names are
well known to those groups and not in favorable
ways.
This is one of the most horrifying lists I’ve
ever seen. Many of these men had various addictions:
sexual, drugs, alcohol.. and that’s before even listing
whether they were solid catechetically.
Justin Bartkus: Good questions.
Justin,
The simple answer to the question you pose in list 2 is: Because liberals are relativists who believe that there is no objective truth. They view Catholics as people who believe in objective truth and the Natural Law, which presents far too much surety for them to bear.
Liberals love wet noodles. Anything less pliant than a wet noodle is by their definition rigid. See how much fun you can have with relativism.
“They will do anything to get ahead.”
I have even seen liberals act conservative to get ahead.
Joseph Imesh is no longer the Bishop of Joliet. Bishop Sartain has been trying for the last 3 years now to renovate the diocese, including bringing in the FSSP. We also have parishes in the Chicago suburbs that celebrate the Novus Ordo much like how EWTN does. Fortunately, our diocese hasn’t had any major sex abuse scandals, however Imesh would handle the ones that we did have by moving the priests to different parishes.
The other problem that we’re having (and maybe other dioceses mentioned above) is that our Chancellor was picked by Imesh, so we’re seeing a sort of power struggle between Sartain and our Chancellor. Some of the blame could be put on Pope Paul VI because he never really stood up against the liberal onslaught. He gave in to the Missal of 1970 as well as granting the indult for reception in the hand. Thankfully, he did publish Humanae Vitae.
A very notable observation Father! My friends and I (two are seminarians at the NAC) have learned all too well what happens when you get in the way of ambitious liberals.
Good Lord- what a list!
Out of charity, I will not say what I think personally
about most of these bishops.
But, my God, how much wreck and ruin these men have caused.
Not a very impressive list except to a lefty like McBrien. Most of these men left considerable damage in their wake. Tom
Weakland??? Really??? Oh my gosh.
It’s interesting, in that it actually seems it’s Benedict who’s appointing ‘pastoral’ bishops (as Rocco Palmo and John Allen have noted), but who also are fundamentally orthodox.
Roman Crusader: I always say that liberalism is a Mental Disorder, but you bring up an interesting angle: Maybe one’s attachment to the Sin of liberalism leads to the mental disorder, after your brain becomes sufficiently mushy.
Semper Fi!
That list…really says it all. Whatever their personal virtues or likeability, Untener, Clark, Hunthausen and Weakland almost single-handedly destroyed their respective dioceses You could fit all of Untener’s vocations from his entire tenure into a phone booth without removing the phone.
Nonetheless there is some interesting congruence between progressives and the more tradition-minded in the criticism of John Paul II\’s appointments – men who might say the “right thing” in terms of nominal orthodoxy but in the governance of their dioceses left almost everything to be desired. Too often there was no examination beyond the surface, and dioceses have paid the price for it.
Hey that’s my bishop (+Skylstad)… about whom EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo wrote, “According to several prelates I have spoken to, Bishop William Skylstad, the president of the American Bishops Conference, flatly told the [P]ope that the U.S. bishops opposed any revival of the old rite.”
He just had a birthday yesterday (March 2). He’s 75.
John
“Alert! Obrien, those good ole days are over! Kyrie, eleison.
Comment by sacerdosinaeternum”
Thanks, I needed that after reading that list. :)
Notice how liberals and mental patients are similar? Complete disconnect with reality or have a distorted or warped perception thereof. There is no striving for anything lofty or holy but only the immediacy of their weirdness–the efforts to force a square peg in a round hole concerning mankind and world. This McBrien case is no different. He has delusions of grandeur, that he just KNOWS better than the Holy Father/Magisterium.
As an aside, liberals want the government to take care of all your needs, dictate all of your actions and decide how much money you can earn before you are penalized ( thus setting an artificial ceiling on your progress or success )? Notice though when it comes to the Church, it is to be eliminated from our lives altogether? Why, because it’s a true obstruction to their efforts. The Church puts man’s true righteous desires for himself and God beyond their designs, thus to be hated and loathed by liberals. Roman Crusader got it pretty much right. Satan energizes their efforts and desires. Since McBrien poo-poo’s the Devil and the true concept evil, all the more he is doing the Devil’s work.
Was he giving us a list of the Bishops who took a thriving pre-Vatican 2 church and destroyed it ? Thankfully only 1 or 2 are left. Unfortunately they are being replaced (with a handful of exceptions) with moderates who won’t dissent from Church teaching but who won’t fight for the salvation of souls either. This i believe is because the Trojan Horse Cardinal Levada is on the Bishop Selection Committee in Rome and has a huge influence over who’s picked. WE DESPERATELY NEED ORTHODOX UNCOMPROMISING ZEALOUS MEN WHO ARE OUT TO SAVE SOULS FROM HELL TO BE APPOINTED!!!!!
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Richard McBrien is just the pub version of Karl Rahner.
should be Irish pub version of Karl Rahner.
Johnny Domer,
Those subordinates whom Paul VI trusted too much were appointed by Paul VI himself. He was a liberal who appointed liberals.
And I don’t think he was weak–his actions against the SSPX were anything but weak.
The various moves during his papacy were strong, and on more than one occasion he sided with those who were out to destroy the Church.
Sounds like Bishop Skylstad lied directly to the pope. Or is it my imagination that probably 40-50 US bishops have personally celebrated the TLM
since Summorum Pontificum? Happy Birthday and Happy Retirement Bishop Skylstad. Tom
I might also add that Paul VI was warned on various occasions about the consequences of the appointments of certain men and certain policies. He ignored that advice. Then, when the bottom fell out of the tub, he started crying and blamed everyone else.
He also publicly said that as long as Cardinal Mindzenty lived, he would be primate of Hungary. Then, after the Communists objected, Paul VI made Cardinal Mindzenty the ex primate.
Should be Mindszenty
It looks like Pomeroy beat me on +Skylstad’s 75th b-day http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_skylstad_resignation.html
In relation to his opinion of the TLM and of the Latin Language. He has said that if any priest or seminarian is to learn a language it will not be Latin they will learn Spanish. And he is very unfavorable to the TLM at a local parish. There are two schismatic groups in/around the diocese, and one SSPX chapel in the diocese. And even though you think as a bishop he might want to reach out towards them he hasn’t and banned the TLM until the Mutuo Proprio tied his hands. He maneged the diocese very well though, got us through the bankruptcy, even though he had to be a little unpastoral, he really is a nice guy, and a very holy man, unfortunatly he is very opposed to traditional things.
Looking at the list Dicky McB put forward as good episcopal appointments, can there be any doubt of the Modernist agenda?
Total annihilation of the Church.
That’s some bizarre application of the word “good,” unless his is speaking ontologically.
Tominelly, could you please respond to the point actually made instead of avoiding it by passing it off as agenda-driven? Does the word “pastoral” by any chance mean making sure people like you or that you make them feel good by telling them things they want to hear? Or does it mean just disseminating a bunch of vague norms like “be nice” which could be applied to a second-grade classroom just as to a nave full of parishioners? If giving people the right information (or information at all) about faith or morals, even when they don’t want to hear it, is the agenda by which I am driven, I guess I am in a good camp. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mk 9:42)
Bishops Hubbard and Clark on the “good” list?
Did I miss something? Why do these men belong on the “good” list? The Diocese of Rochester is in ruins, and Albany is pretty close to joining us.
I can’t stand the supposed opposition between being “pastoral” and “orthodox.” My current pastor is decidedly “unpastoral,” but he is not particularly orthodox. He’s just unapproachable, exudes very little human warmth, and isn’t not someone I would seek counsel from in a difficult moment. The celebrant at my wedding, on the other hand, was orthodox through and through, and also was one of the most pastoral priests I ever knew– I could, and did, speak to him with complete candor and trust, and receive back advice that was both faithful to the teachings of the church and overflowing with human compassion and warmth. Please, liberals, let go of this old canard once and for all!
Richard, I referred to poor Richard McBrien, and not to you or your comment, with which I readily agree; and I regret the confusion caused…
In light of all the above discussion, if the apostolic nuncio or Congregation for Bishops were ever to ask for some broad metrics for new bishops, I wonder what you would offer. In this moral and political climate my own offering would look something like this:
1. Prophetic- along the lines of Fr. John Corapi
2. A good teacher- along the same lines as above
3. NOT a “hale fellow well-met” type. These types tend to be more accomodating to the powers that be than we need right at the moment.
4. Can’t speak baseball. We emphatically need our priests and bishops to divest themselves of television so they aren’t carried along and carried away by the popular culture like everyone else, but you can’t speak baseball or football without “keeping in touch” – through the tube. MHO
4. A saintly, courageous man, soaked in scripture, with a strong contemplative streak ala St. Hugh of Lincoln.
5. Someone with a considerable record of bringing people into or back into the Church.
6. Someone who is not a stand-up comedian and accomplished after dinner speaker. Right now we don’t need Johnny Carson with a mitre, we need St. John Fisher.
Nobody asked, nor will, but this has been on my mind for a while.
Archbishop Patrick Flores of San Antonio???
Having suffered through many years under his “pastoral” guidance, which was geared primarily to those of his ethnic background (“his people”), I can report that he has now been put out to pasture in a retirement community for retired priests. But a lot of mischief was done through his connections with “community workers” who advocated for “social justice” through Catholic parishes here.
May God forgive me if these comments are uncharitable…
Well the picture says it all. Anyone who supports the “Call To Action” lot is not thinking with the mind of the Church.
As to his list of ‘good’ bishops, I live in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee…
Enough said!
I believe there is always a problem with characterizing Catholicism in terms of “liberal” or “conservative.” One is either orthodox or heretical. Many people who hold politically liberal views also hold heretical views. Some who hold politically conservative views also hold heretical views. A good number of those who hold orthodox views are conservative politically.
“Pastoral” is a good word which has been hijacked by heretical elements. It has come to mean “permissive” rather than relating to the true care of souls. In reality one cannot be pastoral unless one is orthodox.
Cory, before Humane Vitea there was “Casti Cannubi”. Why there was ever a commission called at Vatican II on the question of artifical contraception, was and is a no brainer to me,as the Catholic Church has always taught that it was wrong and that ‘abstinence’ is the natural way of God. I believe “Casti Cannubi” should be read by every practicing Catholic in the world.
re: good bishop characteristics
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with being outgoing and personable, or knowledgeable about popular culture, or having an appealing or performance-oriented personality. There have been plenty of great saints and bishops who had those very qualities of charm, just as thereire plenty of introverted and unlikeable people going to Hell.
There’s nothing wrong with being an utterly unworldly bishop, either, but either kind of bishop is going to have difficulties in some areas of the job. It’s the sort of job that requires one be all things to all men, while simultaneously being an adamant shepherd and rock.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the bishops named here, the ones I’ve seen, come across as particuluarly personable on TV.
Is is just me or did that McBrien’s fav list parallel the RICO list prepared by some of the local State’s Attornies?
TerryC,
Conservatives and liberals both tend to have a voluntaristic understanding of the Revelation, esp. the New Law. They consider its existence is not primarily to enlighten the intellect but rather obligations to guide the will. Certainly, there are obligations in the New Law, but they do not describe Grace.
Conservatives tend toward a strict interpretation and liberals a loose one. IMHO, neither is adequate to describe the nature of the Church.
There are days when I wonder if Father McHeretic is actually TRYING to destroy the church. Matthew Clark, unusually good. HA
Thank goodness that people like McBrien are going to be shuffling off this mortal coil….
Rob from Albany diocese-my diocese of Syracuse is not far behind in going to ruins. The current Bishop has been sick for the past few years, and he’s already passed his 75th birthday. His auxiliary, who has also turned 75, is running the diocese with the liberals in the chancery. We’ve got parishes and schools closing right and left, just as your diocese is having.
Please, Papa Benedict, send Syracuse a new shepherd soon! Someone who will truly ‘teach, govern and sanctify’ !
Hahahaha. Wow. Sorry, Tominnelay, it had been a long day, I guess.
ALL: Note that the writer calls the bishops in his list “unusually good, some less so”. He doesn’t say which are “unusually good” and which “less so”. I suppose on a strict reading that “less so” still implies that they are “good”. But I am not sure how careful he is being with his language. He isn’t overly careful with the language of others, if you get my drift.
Oddly, one flaming liberal, Walter Sullivan of Richmond, was also the first bishop to erect a traditional rite parish in his diocese (two parishes, actually).
For one who advanced every liberal and sinful agenda in vogue, he ironically displayed great solicitude for adherennts of the traditional Mass. Even now, in retirement, he will come and celebrate Mass in the EF and administer confirmations in the old rite, and he does so with obvious delight (!) while our new bishop, Francis DiLorenzo, will not even consent to sit and watch the Mass at our parish; but to his credit, Bp. DiLorenzo has gotten rid of the worst features of Sullivan’s tenure, including a notorious “sexual minorities” commission.
Go figure. But grace is a funny thing.
This whole cancer has more ramifications. Now, we have the mose pro abortion president threatening to institute the Freedom of c=Choice Act. And the USCCB is bravely like the Scribes and Pharasees trying to institute a national protest against it. But wait a minute. Has there been any hominiles in most of the USA on abortion since Obama took office, or for that matter, in the last 40 years. Sounds like the Catholic laity hasn’t been taught from the pulpit, thanks to these “wonderful men”. No wonder Catholics have voted for O’Bama. They have no instruction to mobilize their opinion. And to me, this seems very purposeful. For years, it has been claimed the American bishops were in the posket of the Democratic Party and this is only more proof. How can anyone organize a national protest with no grassroots support.
And you can say the same for homilies onhomosexuality, premarital sex, pornography, birth control and Natural Family Planning.
Our country is going down the drain and we can thank these bishops and most of the priests they ordained for getting us deep into this mess.
I noticed a comment by “Cory” about the Joliet Diocese. While I understand your wanting to think Bishop Sartain will get things in order, despite the Chancellor (is it still Judith Davis, the habitless nun?) I think you might wish to check out a program that has been announced in most Parish bulletins of the Joliet Diocese:
“Conference for Divorced and Widowed” with a Rev. Richard Gilbert. What the parish bulletins apparently don’t tell you is that Gilbert is not a Catholic priest, but from a splinter liberal sect of the Anglican Church that promotes “sincere gay men, lesbians and bisexual persons, amongst others.” What the heck are the “others” that they are talking about?
This day long conference by Rev. Gilbert (called “Father Gilbert”) in various bulletins will close with none other than Bishop Peter Sartain presiding at the 4:00PM closing Liturgy. Now, I understand he could very well not know a thing about this program, but given the history of the Joliet Diocese and their liberal bent, I have my sincere doubts. The diocese has the program here:
http://www/dioceseofjoliet.org/familyministry and the “Evangelical Anglican Catholic Church In America” -to which Gilbert belongs, has interesting site with their un-Catholic stands on faith and morals, plus, beside “marriage” they also have “union.” Imagine what that might be? http://eaca.org/wp/ Why does a Catholic Diocese need bring in a person from such an un-Catholic sect? What can this individual do to help poor souls who have divorced? Sorry, things need to change much more in Joliet.