Thursday, June 02, 2005

Responsum ad Dubium

First off, in light of the influx of comments, I need to restate the rules: ALL comments MUST be posted with a valid NAME AND E.MAIL address! Accountability reigns here; it is the price of freedom.

And, Patrick, I'm not speaking of an MC figure (who is usually a cleric or seminarian). I'm speaking of lay liturgical ministers, in particular lectors and extraordinary ministers of Communion, where necessary.


This clamor for Uncle Ted (McCarrick's) scalp is really worrisome. It is a new low of politicization and the interference of secular worldviews into the life of the church. I have never heard of a bishop's (let alone a cardinal's) 75th birthday wildly anticipated in this manner. When Mahony hits 74, the celebrating among cons will begin like it's 1999. (Cons have always loved Prince, e.g. "Purple Rain" in Philly.)

But who appointed McCarrick and Mahony, again? Oh, that's right, they weren't elected by the people of their dioceses, they were elected by John Paul, whom the cons like to call "the Great" -- except when they don't like his handpicked bishops.

All this stupid hoopla is very much akin to this time last year. As June 13, 2004 approached, some crazy perverts established websites counting down months, days, hours and minutes until Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen turned 18.

Did this mean that they'd actually have a shot at bedding the Olsen twins once their 18th came? Of course not; the caliber of people who could actually have a life. But it was nutty people's way of lusting after a fantasy, as we're seeing in an ecclesiastical context here....

McCarrick has always been sweet and charming, but I've never seen him as anything approaching an Olsen twin. Apparently, the rightward fringe feels differently.

That's par for the heterodox course.



Blogger Richard said...

Hello Rocco,

I know the right side has a real jones for Mahoney, but it must be said that anyone who's fed up with the Scandal has to be counting down the days until Exhibit B's retirement from the Archdiocese of LA.

Although I say "Exhibit B," though, come to think of it, it's entirely possible that once the dust settles it may well be evident that Mahoney was even worse than Law when it comes to enabling clerical misbheavior.

But then - alas - it's hardly the first appointment by John Paul II that left a lot to be desired on that score (Groer, anyone?). In fairness, some cons like Rod Dreher make a special point of noting the high grades they give him for "Priest" and "Prophet" and the F they give him for "King."

As for McCarrick, I wonder how much damage he did himself in the USCCB with the handling of the Ratzinger letter, and whether that will have any impact in terms of pressure on the Pope to give him his walking papers early.

I just don't know enough to say right now.

best regards,
Richard Lender

3/6/05 21:36  
Blogger Matthew Lickona said...

A persistent theme in your posts seems to be the notion that if you love JPII, you have to love the bishops he selected. If you don't, you're just paying lip service when you say you love JPII. (You make a similar argument with regard to B16 and his appointment of Levada.) I'm not sure I understand why this should be so. Why isn't it possible for a pope to make a mistake with regard to the appointment of a bishop? Even if he acts on the best possible knowledge at the time of the appointment, who's to say what will happen to the appointed once he's a bishop? Who's to say how he'll change? Who's to say how he'll handle scandalous acts on the part of the priests in his diocese? It's not as if he can make blanket statements during his interview - "I will remove every priest who strays from the celibate life from active ministry" - rather, his handling will have to be based on prudence, the circumstances, the man, etc. The pope makes a prudential judgment in appointing a bishop, why is it disloyalty/lip service to say that, in hindsight, the choice didn't turn out well? I'm sure you're not asking people to turn a blind eye to what they see in the name of loyalty to the pope. And isn't it possible to truly love and admire someone without loving and admiring their every act and decision? As Lender noted, McCarrick seems to have made a major bungle of the Ratzinger letter, one that left a lot of people upset. To say, "Back off - if you criticize McCarrick, you criticize JPII" doesn't seem to be a real argument.

4/6/05 17:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home