www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What's up with Archbishop Levada?

When Pope Benedict named the Archbishop of San Francisco to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith I thought it an odd choice, but knowing little about the archbishop other than he is not one of the handful of American bishops noted for their courage, I decided that the Pope must know best. After all, I have been a fan of his when he held that post for more than two decades
However, when I read the latest Catholic World Report , which features a cover story on Archbishop Levada, I became bewildered.
The Archbishop has a long history of compromising when his brother bishops take a more prophetic stand. He worked out a compromise when San Francisco passed a law which required employers, including the Archdiocese, to pay insurance costs to gay partners, a compromise which ended up with the Archdiocese doing precisely that. When other bishops opined that proabortion politicians would be refused communion, the Archbishop made it clear that he did not support this tactic, but would engage in continued "dialogue" with the politicians [as if that would accomplish anything]. And perhaps most troubling, his record on the sex abuse scandals is about as bad as any bishop's: transferring offenders from parish to parish, downplaying a neighboring bishop's involvement in sexual scandal, even thanking him for his ministry, etc.
All of this has shook my confidence in the new Pope. It seems contrary to everything he said whild a cardinal, even at John Paul's funeral Mass, about the need for prophetic leadership among the episcopate, about how the Church may need to become a smaller but more fervant and faithful vessel.
So: does anyone have any insight, theories or opinions about this new development? I am befuddled.
-Daniel

Those were precisely my thoughts.

Lord have mercy.

However, perhaps Benedict XVI has a plan. Do you remember that Ratzinger was a liberal until he was appointed to that post? Will Levada also change his stripes once he is hit in the face with obvious heresy?

Many new parents come into marriage a bit naive not even knowing how to change a diaper, but once they grow to really love their children, then they become quite active in their community and champion their children's rights, in the end becoming a bit more traditional. Maybe this is the wake-up call that Levada needs.

Doesn't this have more to do with Latin Catholicism then the East??

Dear Brian:

I think the CDF has competence over the entire Catholic Church, i.e., East and West, on all doctrinal matters.

Amado

My brothers and sisters:

Maybe His Holiness understands the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy better than we do.

My spiritual father tells me that Abp. Lavada is solid in his orthodoxy as far as Rome is concerned. Those who were hoping for someone to hold the doctrinal line are thrilled by this appointment.

As for the fact that it may seem that Abp Lavada has compromised in his application of orthodoxy--orthopraxy--it may be that he did what he could in the circumstances he found himself in. San Francisco is part of the United States' "left coast" and one could spend the entire patrimony of the the Church fighting the politics there and still accomplish nothing more than the destruction of the Church. Is it a sin to go along with an evil when the long-term goal of continuing to try to change the reality one finds oneself in is what one intends? If so, then some of the people who became Russian Orthodox under Stalin's 1946 suppression of the UGCC are in the same boat. It seems to me that the Church looks at the long run--and that can mean 100, 200, 500 years--rather than a short term time frame. If the Church in San Francisco has to "knuckle under" to some temporary evil in order to survive and try to change the climate, I cannot see where this makes the Church supportive of the evil. There is still the opportunity to preach the Gospel and change one's surroundings.

Do you think it would be better if the Church just stopped all benefits for all employees so as to avoid the evil of same-sex partner benefits and not be accused of discrimination?

As long as the Catholic Church does not preach that it is moral to offer same-sex benefits and thereby encourage a morally disordered lifestyle, it seems to me that there has been no compromise with the Faith.

In Christ,

BOB

Yes, amado, I know. I just find it rather strange for Catholics to be second guessing the Pope's selection of Archbishop Leveda (whom he has known for years) as not being conservative "enough" for them!!!! It smacks of being more "Catholic then the Pope" What will SATISFY people???? Wjat is this need for the Pope always to be "authoritarian" instead of the pastoral yet firm example that Pope John Paul II gave us???

John Paul the Great was fine for me, too, thank you.
I wasn't suggesting that Archbishop Levada was personally heterodox; very few American bishops are, if any. What I am discussing is pastoral style. Thirty years of "dialogue" and compromise have not served the Church well. Cardinal Ratzinger always epitomized a different, more prophetic way of looking at things. If you think it is pastoral to transfer molesting clerics, I don't think we envision the same thing for a Church which is faithful to the Lord.
As for "what does this have to do with us?": Most, or at least a plurality of posters on this forum are Catholic, whether Eastern or Western. Eastern Catholic theologians, if they err, will be corrected by the CDF. Heck, if you are human and living on this planet the topic has relevance for you. If you're Byzantine and on the forum you start a thread in "Town Hall".
I suppose the Byzantine Forum would be more to some people's liking if we only had threads on liturgical minutiae, ethnic food recipes, arguments about beads vs knots and the like. Some of us prefer some awareness of the universal Church and concern about its direction.
-Daniel

Of course but it would be very tiresome if this concern only came from one point of view. This should be and is a quite different Forum from "Catholic Answers"

Brian-
As long as your'e around we don't have to worry about one point of view dominating.
-Daniel

as they say in German "um so besser"

I am from the San Francisco bay area and I'm concerned about the choice of Levada as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, because he hasn't been all that orthodox during his time as Archbishop of San Francisco. But hopefully his new responsibilities will instill in him the resolve necessary in order to defend the faith of the Church from the attacks of modern secular culture.

Apotheoun- Can you give us examples? The only thing I was able to figure out was that there is no Gay and Lesbian Ministry in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which is pretty impressive. I am reasonably sure there must have been such under Archbishop Quinn; is that right?
[I know the Byzantine Gay Apologists will be outraged by this, but hey, you wanna be equal? There is no other brand of sinner that has a special ministry; I mean what next? "The Masturbators Ministry"? Or "Ministry to Adulterers"?]
Also, the Dignity chapter in SF meets at a Presbyterian Church. The priest's name who says Mass isn't listed, but for some reason I doubt he is in good standing...
-Daniel

Possibly our Pope is trying to put Archbishop Levada into a position that better utilizes his strengths and is less demanding on the areas where he is weak.

If he is doctrinally orthodox, and that is his strength, then why not put him in a position where that doctrinal orthodoxy is most needed, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? If it is weakness that made him "compromise" with political powers, now he is in a place where no politicians can touch him. He answers only to the Pope now.

Tammy

Some problems with Archbishop Levada as reported in Good Bye! Good Men!, and by CWN editor P. Lawler

There is the case of Father Carl Schipper, Academic Dean at Saint Patrick Seminary. According to Michael Rose�s Goodbye! Good Men!, Schipper was arrested following a six month investigation for soliciting sex with minors over the Internet and distributing pornographic material on line. The San Jose police, posing as 13 year old boys on the Internet, caught Father Schipper in the act of soliciting. Schipper pleaded no contest and was sentenced to six months in jail.

This left a vacancy in the San Francisco seminary. Archbishop Levada then called back to the seminary staff Father Gerald Cole-man, S.S., from his sabbatical leave. Father Coleman is well-known for advancing the homosexual agenda. For example, Father Coleman, spoke of �the importance� of seminaries recognizing and accepting their sexual orientation, heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Father Coleman also had publicly called for civil law to �in some fashion recognize these faithful and loving (homosexual) unions by ac-cording them certain rights and obligations, thus assisting (homosexual) persons in unions with clear and specified benefits.�
The pseudo-Catholic Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, who issued marriage licenses to homosexual couples, was not disciplined by Archbishop Levada for doing so.

At the same time, Catholic Mayor Newsom boasted that he receives Communion on those Sundays he decides to go to Mass, and that �his conscience is clear�. Mayor Newsom also said at a press conference that he disagreed with the Catholic Church�s teaching on stem cell research, abortion, same-sex marriage and birth-control. Levada did nothing against the Mayor�s public scoff of the Catholic religion.

No one would call Catholic World News a traditionalist publication but even Philip Lawler, CWN editor, was clearly shaken by Levada�s rise to prominence. Calling the appointment �shocking�, he explains that the Prefect of the CDF is the second-most influential leader in the universal Church. He also laments that Levada�s style of compromise on major issues such as same-sex benefits and pro-abortion Catholic politicians, �undermined positions taken by other American prelates who had chosen to take a clear stand and risk a direct clash with the popular culture.�

Levada�s track record in the clerical sex-abuse is abysmal. The Portland diocese which he led from 1986 to 1996 is now bankrupt because of payments won in court by abuse victims. �Several of the devastating lawsuits� says Lawler, �involved priests who were restored to parish work by Archbishop Levada after having beeen accused of molesting children.� Levada also protected these priests from criminal prosecution after the Archbishop learned of their crimes.

Of Levada�s activities in San Francisco, Lawler writes, �In San Francisco, the archbishop has been roundly denounced by sex-abuse victims for what they see as his uncooperative attitude in efforts to identify and punish clerical abuse.� Lawler explains that these denunciations came not only from the abuse victims, but from one of Levada�s own men. Lawler writes, �James Jenkins, a layman chosen by the archbishop to chair an independent review board examining child-abuse allegations, eventually resigned in protest, charging that Levada had stymied the work of the board through �deception, manipulation and control�.�

Then in 1999, Bishop Patrick Zieman of the neighboring diocese of Santa Rosa was forced to resign after news surfaced that he had blackmailed a priest to serve as his on-call homosexual partner. Bishop Zieman, due to extravagant spending, left the diocese with a colossal $30 million debt. Archbishop Levada, who was made the temporary apostolic administrator in the vacancy, not only refrained from condemning Zieman�s actions, but asked the faithful to join him �in thanking [Zieman] for the energy and gifts he has shared far and wide.� Levada also covered up Zieman�s financial misdeeds calling them merely �poor investment decisions,� and said at a February 2000 press conference that it is inappropriate for a layman to call for criminal prosecution of Bishop Zieman.

What renders all of this even more disturbing is that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, since 2002, is now commissioned with investigating charges of clerical abuse. Benedict XVI has chosen a man with a history of compromise and cover-up to head this central discastery.

Archbishop Levada, while Ordinary of Oregon, also had run-ins with Father Eugene Heidt, a feisty traditional priest. Levada eventually illicitly �suspended� Father Heidt for his no-compromise adherence to Tradition. Before the �suspension�, during a meeting with the Archbishop, Father Heidt complained that the Archbishop�s Pastoral Letter on the Eucharist contained no mention of Transubstantiation. Levada replied that Transubstantiation is a �long and difficult term� and that �we don�t use it any more�.

This is a mockery to the Council of Trent, that committed the Church to this precise scholastic definition, hallowed by long usage. Even Pope Paul VI�s 1965 Mysterium Fidei reiterated that the parish priest is duty-bound to speak of �Transubstantiation.� (#54).

True, but Brian addressed the fundamental issue on the first parade thread.

AFAIK, masturbator and adulterer "bashing" is relatively very rare. We do not have general policies against allowing masturbators and adulterers in our military. We similarly neither arrest nor have criminal trials for masturbators and adulterers.

Like the parades, such ministries are not beyond serious criticism, but neither is a charitable understanding of their origin. Perhaps when we treat gays even as we treat adulterers and masturbators we will move beyond such ministires and parades. Glib remarks, though, are part of the problem not the solution.