How it plays in Peoria.
On April 14, Bishop Daniel Jenky, CSC, of Peoria, Illinois, delivered a homily to about five-hundred men on the theme of heroic Catholicism. After speaking quite movingly on the Resurrection, on evangelization in the face of impossible odds, persecution, Jenky pivoted to discuss contemporary challenges to Christian witness. Can you guess what those might be?
For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But think about it. The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire.
The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism.
And in the power of the resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.
The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.
[...]
Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, proabortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.
[...]
This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries — only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the instrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.
No Catholic ministry – and yes, Mr. President, for Catholics our schools and hospitals are ministries – can remain faithful to the Lordship of the Risen Christ and to his glorious Gospel of Life if they are forced to pay for abortions.
Why would anyone think a bishop could be perceived as partisan?
As they used to say in the Soviet bloc: they pretend to lead, we pretend to follow.
The question is, will the Church survive its bishops.
@Molly: Very apt.
The bishops rhgetorical flourishes are surely getting practice! This is such an absurd comparison that it is hard to know how to begin to address it.
It is interesting to note that the bishop, at least in this context, does not mention the Church surviving the scandals of its leaders…still waiting on Philadelphia and Kansas City… and the many others that are not in the news in litigation.
More dangerously however, is that this surely feeds the “hate speech’ categories that can tip the most unstable over the edge… I hope that the bishops will tamp this down before they not only cross political lines of civilty and bias, but are indirectly contributors to anything worse…
@Jeanne Follman (4/18, 10:41 am) I think the answer to your question is yes. The Church has survived its bishops for nearly 2,000 years now. I don’t think there’s anything unique (beyond the uniqueness of each one of God’s creations) about this generation of bishops.
I also wouldn’t presume that Bishop Jenky speaks for all the bishops—even just all the American bishops.
“Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, proabortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”
This is speculation only but I have to find some kind of explanation for Bishop Jenky’s outrageous statements.
Perhaps, he has to go overboard to prove his episcopal loyalty, since he is the only U.S. bishop who is a member of the Congregation of Holy Cross, and was not one of the bishops who publicly protested Obama’s honor at the 2009 Notre Dame commencement.
Since a bishop used an overwrought analogy, I suppose that excuses the rest of us from opposing the mandate, or pressuring our representatives to abandon it.
Nancy: Stop posting here. Stop making up fake names. Go away.
I bet all of the five hundred ‘men’ just sat there and not one got up and out. . If you wonder how thousands marched through a continent to wage war on all the crusades, it was speeches like this that got the hoi polloi up and armed. [no mention by the bishop or mention of the pogroms either ]
‘I suppose that excuses the rest of us from opposing the mandate, or pressuring our representatives to abandon it.”
Not at all. I suggest you contact your representatives and the President if you oppose the mandate.
I do not opose the mandate. I’m strongly in favor of it. I also am in favor of the widest possible publication of the bishop’s coments. It will clear the air and show that opposition to the mandate is not based on any legitimate sense of religious freedom.
My initial thought was: “he forgot to take his meds”
Embarrassing
Since it is so “PC” to use fact checkers – this bishop repeats factual errors; makes outrageous allegations as if they are facts; assumes “certitude” where there is no certitude to be found eg. abortifacient medications as one example.
Why Illinois has some of the most “fundamentalist” and “mediocre” bishops in the US is beyond me e.g. Springfield, Peoria, Belleville, etc.
One can always hope that his rant will lead to an investigation of his non-profit status given his clear over-reach into politics. That might send a signal to his colleagues who think like him e.g. Nienstadt in Minnesota; Sartrain in Seattle.
All the armchair commentators here seem to discount the possibility that quite a few bishops are sincerely convinced that they will be forced to choose between their consciences and losing large parts of the Catholic school/healthcare system (probably not by closing, but by selling it to for-profit entities). And that if the current mandate will not do it (why not? For instance, I still have not heard of any “accomodation” for self-insured Catholic institutions), during its second term the Obama administration will feel no restrain to include standard abortion procedures in its list of “necessary” medical procedures. I know personally a couple of bishops who are in agony about this prospect.
But again, no, it’s all political partisanship. The dominant secular-liberal culture is not posing any threat to the freedom of the Church!
Regardless of this particular controversy, what strikes me (as a foreigner) is that Commonweal-type Catholics seem to have no doubt that if they have to choose between questioning the judgment of the bishops or the intentions of the Obama administration, they will always give the benefit of the doubt to the administration. In other words they will always trust Obama before they trust the bishops. This says something, no?
“Contemporary bishops are painfully learning that they can either function hierarchically or they can exercise healthy authority but that they cannot do both.
Hierarchies are designed for the exercise of power, that is, for authoritarian control. They depend on structures rather than human relationships.
Authority, however, depends completely on human relationships. It derives from the Latin augere – to create, to make able to grow. Parents augere their children. Their authority over them is a function of that special relationship through which parents commit themselves to their children’s growth, to their human fullness, to their emergence from dependence. So, too, the authority of teachers, pastors and popes is essentially relational, ordered to the growth of their students, their parishioners or their worldwide flock.
Bishops who have been trained to relate structurally through their roles and the rules of hierarchy and who have been conditioned to manage rather than expose themselves to the risks of human relationships find it almost impossible to exercise their authority effectively in an institution that insists that they exercise it as impersonal control. ”
Eugene Kennedy, The Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Sexuality.
For instance, I still have not heard of any “accomodation” for self-insured Catholic institutions),
Carlo Lancelloti,
Check out the link Cathy Kaveny provides in the next topic (The latest on the HHS Accommodation). Several ideas are being considered by HHS for self-insured organizations, and additional ideas are being solicited.
I hope the inflammatory statements by this bishop, Ted Nugent, Foster Friess, etc., etc., etc., combined with the Secret Service’s failures do not end in tragedy.
David Nickol:
thank you. My comment, of course, was mostly about some Catholics’ readiness to dismiss rather superficially the bishops’ concerns when “progressive” politics are at stake. The same applies to a certain type of “conservative” Catholic, of course.
This bishop is literally off his proverbial rocker!!!
I mean, Really!!!
Church of Rome: continuing implosion; slow dying by a thousand self-inflicted cuts.
Just one more disturbing example of the “legacy” of JPII.
…and now word from NCRONLINE’s John Allen:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/lefebvrite-schism-may-be-nearing-end
(hey, rome needs friends)
Well, THESE Good Faithful Loyal Orthodox Catholics love the guy: http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=324f558a-7043-41ff-aa47-a517c111c172
Isn’t there a problem with campaigning for a specific candidate from the pulpit? I thought there were some limits to what you could do as a representative of a tax-exempt organization.
From the Introductory Note to the USCCB document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: “We urge our Catholic pastors and people to continue to use this important statement to help them form their consciences, to contribute to civil and respectful public dialogue, and to shape their choices in the coming election in the light of Catholic teaching.”
It seems that Catholic pastors are urged to contribute to *civil and respectful* public dialogue.
And now listen as the moderate bishops, or those actually interested in respectful dialogue, strongly challenge Jenky’s dangerously inflammatory rhetoric….esp. since this is all over the internet, on Daily Kos, Facebook, etc.
No? Not yet? Really?
Ah yes, takes me back to 2006, when Bishop Doran of the nearby Rockford Diocese said in his monthly column that the ““seven ’sacraments’ of [the Democrats'] secular culture are” — in alphabetical order — “abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, feminism of the radical type, and genetic experimentation and mutilation.”
Jim P. =
If “shaping their choices” is part of the program, then there goes tax exemptions for those pastors, and maybe they should be discontinued. It is NOT the functions of pastors to tell their flock whom to vote for, i.e. whom to choose.
“In other words they will always trust Obama before they trust the bishops. This says something, no?”
Yes, Carlo, that’s true. The reason we trust Obama more is because we learned in the sex scandal that many, many, perhaps even most American bishops lied and covered-up the truth even to felonious degrees. In other words, they themselves have taught us not to trust them. They have brought this on themselves. They express sorrow and contrition, but there has not been one of them — not even one — who has spoken out publicly against the subsequent promotion of some of the worst amongst them. The scandal continues, and we still don’t trust them.
This reminds me of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It’s a similar style, isn’t it?
What is truly amazing is that this guy was the head of the CSCs at Notre Dame, was rector of the campus church and ministry and taught for years at the University. How did that happen given the total lack of objectivity, documentation, and outright opinionated rant – oh, that’s right – the CSCs run Notre Dame. Can’t imagine how the current Notre Dame president, Jenkins, could deal with his fellow confree?
Can really imagine a current faculty member at Notre Dame being allowed to continue to teach if he/she made this type of public rant?
Bill deH. ==
If a tenured teacher can give rational reasons for oddball theories/positions or for politically threatening criticisms he or she is protected by academic freedom. However, when the teacher cannot support his/her view with rational reasons/evidence, he/she is considered incompetent and may be fired. The problem becomes: what are rational reasons?
The reason for this principle is that new or politically incorrect theories often are rejected by the old guard, and this principle is a means of protecting the teachers who hold them, even if it means that they are often wrong. Why protect them? Because it is from the creative teachers that valuable new theories and insights come, not from the stodgy old guard, and the stodgy old guard includes both conservatives and liberals.
Ok, so I see the ad hominem attacks on our bishop, but I missed the part where anyone actually engaged him substantively on the issuee. Perhaps I should check out the letters to the editor over at First Things for that?
Ann:
“The reason we trust Obama more is because we learned in the sex scandal that …”
Yes, perhaps. I am a bit skeptical, though. First of all, I am never impressed by attributions of collective guilt. But, let us assume, as you claim, that all US bishops are morally weak characters that do not rise to our superior standards of conduct, and that if you and I were in their place we would act much more courageously and virtuously. It remains true that:
a) many of them may still be sincerely concerned about the future of the Church in this country.
b) That we cannot be Catholic without them.
c) That many “liberal” Catholics I know seem so enamored of progressive politics that they would choose to support the Obama administration over the bishops even if these latters were a paragon of moral virtue. Just saying..
I live in the Peoria diocese. Anyone want to trade bishops? Our last one was John Myers. It’s time we caught a break.
Carlo Lancellotti 04/18/2012 – 10:24 pm
Ann:
“The reason we trust Obama more is because we learned in the sex scandal that …”
“It remains true that:
a) many of them may still be sincerely concerned about the future of the Church in this country.
b) That we cannot be Catholic without them.”
Neither of these is true. Most bishops are not at all sincerely concerned about the future of the Catholic Church. There are two pending criminal trials involving two different dioceses and both cases contain unbelievable destructions of evidence, aside from the criminal child abuse that was condoned in each diocese. Other dioceses have entered plea bargains to avoid jail time.
In today’s news, a current bishop is accused under oath of child abuse and a vicar in change of child abuse investigations in another dioceses was suspended for credible allegations of child abuse.
It apparently is beyond the bishops’ ability to control clerical child abuse. I formerly thought bishops were gutless incompetents. Now, it’s quite clear that they are selfish despicable evil men serving their own purposes and not their flock.
All of their noise about the mandate, nuns and gay marriage is a smokescreen intended to divert attention from the evil and often criminal coverups that have occurred in most dioceses.
Carlo –
I don’t think there is such a thing as collective guilt. However, when not one bishop criticizes the promotion of some of the worst of them, one may generalize and truthfully say something about each and every one of them.
Yes, I don’t doubt they are concerned about the future of the Church. But why?
You offer another quotation which you seem to think is from me, but where did I say that?
You also say “Now, it’s quite clear that they are selfish despicable evil men serving their own purposes and not their flock.” I don’t agree with this either. Best I can tell, most seem to be too weak to fight their corrupt ecclesiastical culture which prizes avoidance of scandal above all and which not only tolerates lying and coverups but even demands it at times. That is not necesssarily selfish. Just weak, though I would grant that there have been some pretty awful hypocrites and scofflaws among them.
Question(s) for Ann Olivier:
Are we to assume that, for you, you don’t consider yourself your “brother’s keeper?”
If there is no “collective guilt,” then I would assume that you believe that all the atrocities in history done in the name of “only following orders” is a justified defense?
I fear Jim jenkins is correct and we don’t want to truly face how bad things were(are.)
JIm J. ==
When I say there is no “collective” guilt I mean that groups as such are not guilty — individuals within the group are guilty. Occasionally all the members of a group are guilty, and in those cases it makes sense to generalize. Otherwise, we shouldn’t do it.
Characterizing a group as bad in some way is exactly what was done in the South – and other places — about African-Americans. In such cases characterization of the whole group is called “racial prejudice”. (There is also racial prejudice that is not negative — black friends tell me that the notion that all black people have good rhythm is also a prejudice, and a Jewish acquantance told me that is was laughable to say that Jews are smarter than other people.)
It makes no difference that some individuals *say* they are acting for the whole group. Saying and doing are two different things. It’s possible that a whole group might ask one of the group to speak for them, but that would be an exceptional case, I think. And, yes, the Germans (and others) who excused themselves saying they were only following orders were guilty *individually*. But there *were* some good Germans, and justice requires that we not accuse them of other people’s sins.
The hierarchy are where Lehmann Bros. were about one year/six months before the collapse. It will happen fast too.
Carlo,
Collective guilt or not, one thing that seems noticeably absent to me is any forgiveness.
I should also add that I’m virtually positive I would have made many of the same mistakes as the bishops had I faced similar situations.
Ann:
you mixed up Joe McFaul’s post with mine.
How I wish ed gleason’s predictions would come to pass! Were they in the realm of probability! I would be the first to cheer a democratic revolution in the church: LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
Yet, I fear that we are in for more [of what John Kennedy once said of the Cold War] “a long twilight struggle” with the hierarchs.
The hierarchs are sitting on a mountain of money with which they can buy themselves a lot of media and political consultants, and aggressive lawyers, to maintain appearances and their illusory grip on political power. Money is speech. Speech is power: The hierarchs have a lot of fight [money!] left.
Jenky [although his and my surnames are similar in spelling, we are not related!] is yet again another example, another embarrassment really, of a Catholic hierarch who is grossly irrelevant and alienated from their own people.
Maybe Bp Jenky could return to his spiritual heritage in the Congregation of Holy Cross and make pilgrimage to St. Frere Andre’s grave at St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal beseeching for a extra measure of humility and healing?
If we take the long view, the People are actually winning this struggle with the hierarchs. The hierarchs and priests in general are dying off with fewer and fewer men of any real pastoral competence to replace them.
An inexorable evolution toward a Peoples’ Church has been underway for a long, long time. The evidence and signs are all around us. The primitive church had the hope of an empty tomb. We have the hope of empty pews: Jesus is not there, he is risen.
This “long twilight struggle” will not be won with politics, diplomacy, or even doctrinal policing from the hierarchs: Cor ad cor loquitor.
The achievement of a Peoples’ Church may take decades, even centuries, but the People will reach that promised land: LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
@ Bruce: Based on my experience on the SF review board where I had a front row seat on “many of the same mistakes [of] the bishops” as you put it, I am convinced that if some grandmother or grandfather whose signature was required to be on all those hush money checks, that many more children would have been safe[r] from serial priest sexual predators.
Jim Jenkins:
“but the People will reach that promised land: LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!
Yes, yes. What people exactly? Sorry, what “People” exactly? Not me, for sure…
By the way, have you ever heard of Joachim of Fiore?
I apologize for causing comment confusion.
I am sorry that others feel they would have made the same mistakes made by the bishops. One reason that I am so furious at the bishops is that I know that I would not have made those mistakes. In my life I have had to deal with chidld sex abuse reports. My actions were swift and I am confortable in 20-20 hindsight that I made the right decisions.
I do not believe the bishops were faced with morally difficult decisions at all.
I suspect that most Catholics inthe bishops’ positions would have made much better decisions. No bishop had any excuse after 1985 when the Peterson Report was delivered to each bishop.
The one thing I did not factor into my decisionmaking: The public relations effect on the organization.
The Church has this warped concept of “scandal.” The same warped concept leads the bishops astray in the HHS mandate issue, as well.
Both the term and the concept should be eliminated from Catholic ethics. The concept of “scandal” has caused vast harm and provided no benefit over the centuries.
I’m sorry, Carlo. Joe McFaul quoted you quoting me, only the last part wasn’t from me. I mistook you as the originator of his email.
“All of their noise about the mandate, nuns and gay marriage is a smokescreen intended to divert attention from the evil and often criminal coverups that have occurred in most dioceses.”
Spot on. The more we talk about HHS and Obama the less is said about cover-ups, child abuse. suing of victims, harassing their advocates….
Did anyone notice that the bishops said we must fight like good Catholic “men.” Is that an issue to engage on, Mark. Not just a faux pas. But a revelation of what the man thinks.
Carlo,
Jesus said whenever two or more of you are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of you. Not whenever a bishop etc. It is old dogma and it is flawed. But if you are stuck in the Middle Ages…..
Bill:
“Jesus said whenever two or more of you are gathered in my name there am I in the midst of you. Not whenever a bishop etc. It is old dogma and it is flawed. But if you are stuck in the Middle Ages…”
Well, when people tell me that I always reply that I would rather be stuck in the Middle Ages
than in the 1960′s like some people I know.
Joe McFaul –
I mostly agree with your last post, but I don’t think that the bishops’ decisions early in the scandal were usually easy ones, but not because the morality of the predators behavior was in any doubt. What was in doubt (for them) was “What shall I do about this?” Because the bishops themselves were victims of a corrupt culture which taught them to avoid scandal as if accusation of clergy failures is sinful, they were caught between choosing scandal (which they had been taught was a big sin) and telling what they thought minor lies.
At first the damage the perverts were doing was not entirely clear to them, but it quickly became clear, and it seems to me that their obligations became clear: report the felons. Their decisions by that time should have been clear if not easy, but because their corrupt culture still kept kicking in, it must have been difficult for them to act counter-culturally. But more and more bishops did find the courage, and i would say that by 2002 there were no more extenuating circumstances to excuse non-reporting, not even the fact of the corrupt culture.
But another scandal still remains — they still don’t realize that there should have been consequences at least for the worst of them, and they should have called for Cardinals Law, Bevilaqua, and Rigali to resign, and maybe some others besides. But not one of them has spoken out against a brother-bishop. This deafening silence about the most egregious policies of transferring perverts and the cover-ups is the recurring scandal. The bishops are still too weak to criticize their own.
Yes, they have had throughout this shameful spectacle a warped notion of what scandal really is, so they still don’t realize that their silence is itself shameful. Maybe the horrors that were countenaced in the Philadelphia diocese will open some eyes, if they dare to look.
So that we don’t overlook the sordid performance of our hierarchs:
See http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/bishops-were-warned-abusive-priests.
If link doesn’t work, SEARCH for “Bishops were warned of abusive priests”.
And let’s not overlook Tom Doyle’s report on clerical sexual abuse to the U.S. bishops more than 20 years ago!
These guys in their purples and reds knew then — and know today — exactly what they were and are doing in the interest of damage control — except they called it then (and today) “protecting Holy Mother Church from scandal”.
Hell, our bishops ARE the scandal!!!
The bishops are still too weak to criticize their own.
We have zero knowledge about what is happening behind closed doors.
Bruce –
If your neighbor has not left his house in 25 years, do you really think it is reasonable to think that he is contemplating leaving it any time soon, unless you have some evidence of such thinking on his part? And if his neighbor on the the other side of his house said to you, “Maybe he might come out thisSunday” but gave you no reason for thinking so, what would you think of his question?
Same with the bishops. Maybe they’re contemplating going public with their criticisms. But there’s not shred of evidence to think so.
Ann, Just because the criticisms are not public does not mean they are not happening. And, even if they were public, that does not necessarily make them more effective. Those of us on the outside only have control over ourselves, no one else. We can either continue to brood and feed the complaints, or forgive and remain vigilant. I choose the latter.
The criticisms of nuns (for using the wrong language about God, or not speaking out enough about certain topics) are very public. The criticisms of child rapists are not. It’s important to be outraged at the outrageous, as Hannah Arendt would say.
Bruce –
But such criticisms NEED to be made public. Why? So people like you won’t assume that the bishops are in fact condemning their wayward brethren. And the Vatican needs to hear via public statements how strongly the bishops condemn the outrageous behavior of some of them, and, further, the Vatican needs to know that most bishops condemn the presence in the upper echelons of the Vatican of Law and Co. whose behavior has been outrageous. IF, of course, the bishops do condemn those facts — we really don’t know that they do because there is no evidence that they do.
To read your comments one would think that you think it is sinful to criticize a bishop.
On scandal. Actually, I think it’s a useful concept, for three reasons:
1. It is important for us to consider how our actions will “play” to those outside our circle, (whatever that circle may be.)
2. It’s crucial to bear in mind that scandal is always two-sided, i.e., the scandal one risks in doing X or in NOT doing X must both be considered. This is useful in moral discernment because,
3. Careful consideration of the two edges of scandal and the decisions made in light of the risk of scandal reveal priorities. In fact, many African bishops prefer to watch their people die of AIDS rather than compromise their (mis)understanding of Catholic moral teaching on contraception. That reveals values. In fact, American bishops would rather sink health care for 50 million Americans than risk being remotely remotely connected to contraception, even though most everybody already practices it. That reveals values. And in fact, bishops worldwide decided it was better to try to cover up the sex abuse scandal than to protect children from predator priests. That reveals values.
I don’t know if more careful consideration of the two sides of scandal would have made a difference in acting in any of the situations I named, but it does reveal to the rest of us what the more important values are to those decision-makers. However, no moral decision should hinge entirely on the risk of scandal–to do so assumes that ordinary people cannot understand complex moral decisions, and that’s simply not true.
@ Carlo Lancellotti:
You asked if I had ever heard of Joachim of Fiore (c. 1135-1202)? As a matter of fact, YES!
Giacchino da Fiore was born in the same Calabrian village, Celico, from where my grandparents immigrated to the US. I came across his story when I was researching about my grandparents prior to a visit two years ago to Celico hoping to find some evidence of their presence there in the village.
[My grandparents were illiterate and very poor, and the family here in America had lost all ties to our Calabrian ancestry except for family stories and remembrances and, of course, our family cuisine.]
During my visit, I did find my grandparents’ marriage and birth records in Celico, and in nearby Cosenza. And, there is a small chapel [all boarded up] in Celico commemorating Giacchino’s birth in the village. Apparently he came from a prominent family and he was educated.
The remarkable thing for me is that Giacchino escaped torture and execution for his ideas by the Inquisition – probably due to his obvious holiness, erudition (more esoterist, really), teaching and his exemplary life as a monk [an abbot, at that!] in Cistercian communities.
I can see why Giacchino’s prophecies were so threatening to the church: Giacchino prophesied of an age to come in church history when the hierarchy would no longer be NEEDED. Dangerous ideas in the Catholic Church, then and now.
Giacchino theorized the dawn of a new age, based on his interpretation of verses in the Book of Revelation, in which the Church would be unnecessary (which, of course, was considered heresy) and where infidels would unite with Christians.
Some Franciscans of the period acclaimed him as a prophet. Despite his revolutionary and, really, subversive ideas, Giacchino’s popularity was enormous during the 12th century.
There are records of stories that even Richard the Lionhearted [who is recorded to have been in Calabria and Sicily on his way to the Holy Land] wished to meet Giacchino to discuss the Book of Revelation before leaving for the Third Crusade.
It should be noted that as recently as 2009, the Preacher to the Papal Household, Raniero Cantalamessa, gave a lecture to B16 and all his household restating the view that Giacchino da Fiore was STILL a heretic: Go figure! What a surprise!
The story of Giacchino da Fiore informs me that the Holy Spirit has been inspiring and fomenting ideas of a “post hierarchal church” for now many, many centuries. The fact that my ancestral roots and Giacchino’s both spring from the same Calabrian village, to me means that I am in good company.
Specifically, when I say: LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE! I am referencing what V2 Constitution, LUMEN GENTIUM refers to the “People of God.”
That’s about as broad and inclusive as you can get, don’t you think? I believe that the “PEOPLE OF GOD” includes you, Carlo. It includes all of us children of God!
And to Giacchino da Fiore, I would have to think, it would also include “infidels.”
Interesting point of view: Posted on The Daily Kos, the writer makes a connection between Bishop Jenky and Cardinal George and Cardinal Law as yet another example of Catholic hierarchs who believe themselves above American law, and whose claims of “religious liberty” for themselves ring hollow when they act in ways that deny religious liberty for employees in Catholic public institutions.
FRI APR 20, 2012 AT 08:30 PM PDT
Open thread for night owls: No walkback for Bishop Jenky and his ‘Hitler’ claim
by Hunter
Interesting note: anumber of ND profesors have written to Fr.
Jenkins asking for Bisjop Jenky to be removed from the ND Board
Would that there wrer more signees!
“I should also add that I’m virtually positive I would have made many of the same mistakes as the bishops had I faced similar situations.”
Bruce –
Are you saying that you would have made ‘the mistake” of shifting known perverts from parish to parish? You would have destroyed evidence of interest to the police? You would have stonewalled victims and their representatives? You would have lied to the police or a grand jury? I don’t know you very well, but i very much doubt you would have done any of these things.
On the other hand, I don’t doubt that like all the bishops you would not have spoken out in criticism of brother bishops and how even the worst of them have been promoted. You’re all tribalists, and that’s how a culture such as the hierarchical one of deception and silence gets to power and maintains it.