By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 25, 2004
All you folks out there, who have been waiting for an American bishop to start throwing his weight around asserting his authority, have finally got your wish.
There's a catch, of course. You knew there would be.
He "cracked down" on the people who want a crackdown
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: extremeCatholic -
Mar. 26, 2004 9:49 PM ET USA
The central problem is the Archbishop sees his role and responsibiity to heterodox is "to influence", to the orthodox his role and responsibility is to stop the "assault". Perhaps it's a matter of fear. The Archbisop is intimidated by the heterodox and knows that if he attempts to exercise authority over them, he will be mocked. Better to for the Archbishop to intimidate the obedient, who will comply and thereby let the world know that his authority is repected somewhere.
Posted by: Abraham Tolemahcs -
Mar. 26, 2004 6:39 AM ET USA
John J, I'd say that it WAS a clear threat to the laity involved. "Knock it off 'cause I'm the bishop or your kids will have to travel to Mexico to get confirmed." There is no doubt in my mind that sacramental blakmail is right around the corner for some of these bishops. As far as obedience to the bishop goes, the majority of them abrogated their moral authority when they surrendered to the modernists, homosexuals and feminists. They must first demonstrate obedience to the Magisterium.
Posted by: AveMaria580 -
Mar. 25, 2004 11:59 PM ET USA
Interesting how they want to be inclusive and are willing to dialogue until those faithful to the Church's teaching ask for a hearing. I wait for the day they are as sensitive to the faithful as they are to the perverts. Of course, with 100+ lavendar bishops I don't expect it will happen soon.
Posted by: -
Mar. 25, 2004 9:18 PM ET USA
I love this quote at the end of the story from the archbishop's flack: "At some point there is an issue of deference to the archbishop..." The response should be: "At some point there is the issue of deference to the teaching of the Church, Scripture and Tradition. At some point there is the issue of a Catholic bishop deciding to be Catholic or deciding to resign and take up residence at the local Unitarian church. At some point a pharisaic bishop can no longer expect deference..."
Posted by: John J Plick -
Mar. 25, 2004 9:06 PM ET USA
"I must remind you that I am the archbishop and choose to influence in a different manner than you and many of the people who would write to me..." So just what does that mean? Is it a veiled "threat" to the laity involved. And just what would he (the Archbishop) do to them if they persisted? And whose sin would it be if they (the laity) did persist and the Archbishop used his authority to retaliate?
Posted by: principle not pragmatism -
Mar. 25, 2004 7:12 PM ET USA
Just maybe, it would be good for these dissidents to have a schism, and we could have the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit without their divisivness.