Thursday, June 02, 2005

St. Louis Digest

First, Rome fires a Jesuit. Now they're cannibalizing each other -- and the cons are crowing.

This from the beloved Post-Dispatch:

Two popular Jesuit priests at St. Louis University were forced to resign for their student advocacy, one of them said last week, provoking anger from students, parents, alumni and faculty members.

A source on the ground tells me that everyone is just dead furious at Larry Biondi, father-president of SLU. Biondi "likes loyalty" and didn't like being criticized by the campus ministry team. So he pulls a Ratzi and chucks them both? There must be something power-mad in the water down on the Mississippi....

Also from the P-D, Jeannine Granmick resurfaces in the Rome of the West. Apparently, she once met B16:

She notes that the Bible, in addition to saying man should not lie with man, "says we shouldn't eat shellfish or ordain humpbacked priests. We hold on to that passage (condemning homosexual acts) to justify prejudice."

[Sr. Jeannine] had failed to be granted an appointment with [Ratzinger] in Rome. But years later she ended up on the same flight with him from Rome to Berlin, a year before he would censure her.

She was well aware she was being investigated by Ratzinger, who was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. When she sat next to him and introduced herself, "He said, 'Oh, I've known you for 20 years,' " she recalled.

He told her he didn't mind that she arranged Masses in the homes of gay Catholics, but going to other dioceses and preaching against the policies of the Vatican are another matter....

Her conversation with Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, "for me," she said, "put a human face on this institution. "He was very gracious, very kind and had a sense of humor. I asked if he knew gay Catholics, and he said, 'Oh, yeah. When the pope and I were in Berlin, there were gays demonstrating.' So, that is his experience with gay people - confrontational."

Interesting, no? Jeannine Granmick saying nice things about Papa Ratzi while his "base" tries to maintain a police state over him and force the pope's hand....

Don't kid yourself: the scribes and pharisees are among us again.



Blogger The Reluctant Lawyer said...


Where in these articles are the cons crowing? I think your work suffers from an inability to view things from the perspective of faith rather than the tired lens of the political spectrum. Certainly, you have hacks like Deal Hudson who seems to conflate Catholicism with being a Republican. But starting a post like you do this one really amounts to nothing more than a gratuitous slam. (And yet your comments about Chaput are I think well-made and well-taken.) Or put differently I think if you removed sneering comments about cons that your posts would be much better (they are already quite good).

The Pope's base? What the hell does that mean? We are all his flock. I don't want to force his hand. I have hopes for his papacy but I realize he is wiser and holier than I am. So I will trust in his guidance and wisdom, perhaps offering criticism at times but knowing that I am not Pope and that it is much easier to be an armchair bishop than to be one.

Turning to Gramick, her ministry is of course problematic because it doesn't call those who experience same-sex attraction back to Christ and his teaching. She dismisses the teaching with a simplistic argument about the Bible. (It really is a weak argument on her part and embarassing if you ask me.)

She says there were no bishops or cardinals when Christ walked the earth. But of course Christ founded an apostolic Church that is hierarchical. So much for the apostolic faith. "You stay Catholic because the church is the people of God." What utter bosh.

Her reaction to the new Pope is interesting. What was she expecting? I really mean that. Who was she expecting to be named Pope and who would have pleased her?

3/6/05 10:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home