www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vote for new pope

C.B.--

That LA website is deviating from Church teaching, insofar as it claims that there are "outdated Church teachings" in reference to homosexuality. There are no "outdated" Church teachings.

LatinTrad

LT, I respectfully disagree with you. You are taking one phrase out of context and you fail to read the full text ... and you do not know which "teachings" are being referred to.

Teachings which are de fide, which touch on faith and morals, would not be outdated, but teachings which do not speak to the deposit of faith or sacred tradition could possibly be classified as outdated. And in this instance, we do not know what is being referred to.

Would you consider Paul`s teaching that slaves must be obedient to their masters to be something which must be held today? The Church was at times complicit in slavery and many prominent American Catholics were, disgracefully, slaveholders. That Pauline teaching is outdated and some would apply other, stronger adjectives to it.

If you feel so strongly that the particular statement deviates from Church teaching, why don`t you contact those in charge of that ministry and ask them what they mean by that statement? Assumptions are very dangerous things. Facts always trump assumptions.

Pax tecum, frater in fide meus.

Charles

Charles,

I am very curious regarding your defense of Cardinal Mahony, who is not the apple of the eye on the majority of RC forums, people would not comment if there were no reasons.

james

James,

Cardinal Mahony has not taught anything which is opposed to the Magisterium. That he "is not the apple of the eye on the majority of RC forums" is not indicative of any problem in the orthodoxy of his teaching. It simply indicates that there are some people in the Church who are more vocal in their opposition to what they see as deviations from Catholic teaching. That is simply their opinion.

There have been comments in this thread and,if my recollection is good, in the past in other threads, which are disrespectful of him, which are greatly lacking in Christian charity, and which accuse him of unorthodox teaching.

Nothing that has been posted in this thread proves any lack of orthodoxy on his part.

Concerning the posters on other forums, you wrote: "... people would not comment if there were no reasons...." There are some people who disagree with his emphasis on the social teachings of the Church, some very vociferously so; there are others who dislike his teaching in the area of liturgy; and there are those who just don`t like his management style. That is not indicative of any lack of orthodoxy, although some who disagree with him seem to believe that it is.

You wrote "I am very curious regarding your defense of Cardinal Mahony...." What am I to make of that? Obviouly, you are questioning my motives. Is this "guilt by association"?
As I said previously, I have met him (once) and spoken with him and I have heard him speak on the subject of liturgy. I have also read some of his writings and I find nothing that is at variance with the teachings of the Church.

However, he is not on this forum to defend himself against the over the top comments of some posters - nor should he, for he has more important duties to tend to. If posters on this Forum - and it is the only one that I subscibe to - were to villify someone such as Cardinal Ratzinger, I would defend him, too.

I wish you peace.

Charles

James,

Just a few more comments to expand on my previous reply to you. In my time on this Forum, I have seen the intentions and orthodoxy of people questioned more than is to my liking and others have very eloquently come to their defense.

In this instance, I know Cardinal Mahony, albeit not well, and IMHO there have been remarks about him in this thread which go way beyond the bounds of Christian charity, which make serious accusations questioning his orthodoxy without offering any substantial proof, and which are on their face incorrect.

I would point out that he was named Metropolitan Archbishop of Los Angeles by Pope John Paul II - and important nominations did get personal scrutiny by our late Pope - and he was created a cardinal by the same Pope - and cardinals are created on the personal initiative of the Pope. Popes are not constrained by the supposed perogatives of certain dioceses in the creation of cardinals and if the Pope had any doubts about the fidelity and orthodoxy of the Metropolitan Archbishop of Los Angeles, he would not have created him a cardinal.

There are several times in the past when I considered posting an objection to the insulting remarks directed toward other cardinals and bishops, but I decided against it. It was not without some trepidation that I made my intial post on this thread, for I am well aware of the kinds of less than charitable comments which have been directed at others in the past (not by you).

I don`t think that I am terribly thin-skinned, but I am familiar with a genre of remarks which imply "guilt by association", e.g., why would you ever defend a person whose views must be suspect because so many people criticize him. That is the sum and substance of your question to me. If I have misread your intentions, I apologize.

I wish you peace.

Charles

Charles,

I went to bed last night and something kept reminding me that I have seen your name somewhere else besides here.

I must apologize, you are very knowledgeable regarding matters pertaining to the Episcopate and Apostolic succession.

Though I will disagree with you on a few items that occur here in L.A.

james

James,

Thank you for your post. It is very gracious. An apology is not necessary. However, if I misinterpreted anything you said, I apologize. This mode of communication does not allow us to see or hear another`s inflections of voice or facial expressions, which, I believe, are really important to understand from whence one comes.

In my studies, I come across many items about bishops: fact, conjecture, gossip, wishful thinking. For me, I go with facts and when I find something that doesn`t sound just right, I look for facts to substantiate it. I have found in my 40 years plus of research that people have always told stories about this or that "bad" or "scandalous" or "stupid" or ... bishop. I have learned that discernment is a must - and that applies to any story about any person - and I have also found that most stories have elements of truth and elements of untruth. Sometimes they are weighted heavily on one side or another.

Thanks again for your post.

Peace,

Charles

It would seem, reasonably, that even with JPIIs admirable qualities, he probably didn't attain 100% effectiveness when selecting bishops. There are always a few rhinestones sprinkled among the jewels. Why would anyone expect otherwise? I have witnessed highly qualified individuals who did dismal jobs as bishops. I have also seen modestly talented men who made the most of those talents and did excellent jobs. I expect a few bad apples in the mix.

If this is the case then you need to report Cardinal Archbishop Mahoney to the appropriate authorities, together with the evidence to convict him in a Church court.

I ask everyone participating in this thread to go the extra mile in being charitable. Anyone making specific accusations should have already reported it to the appropriate authorities. The Forum is no place for gossip.

Here is the latest poll....


LUSTIGER Jean-Marie 20.84 % (4243)
DAOUD Ignace Moussa I 15.82 % (3222)
RATZINGER Joseph 14.59 % (2970)
VITHAYATHIL Varkey, C.SS.R. 11.06 % (2251)

Ratzinger is losing.... I wonder why ?

Well, I live in L.A. and have a lot of respect and admiration for Cardinal Mahony. And I say that even though I know that he has made some statements, and sponsored some events, which could be considered questionable.

But on the other hand, I don't think his detractors realize how he looks from the OTHER (i.e., non-Christian) side. But I do, because for several years I was an avowed atheist, and one fine day I opened the L.A. Times and read about a "pro choice" prayer meeting that was being held on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Of course they included the obligatory quote from a "reactionary" Catholic, whose very intolerant comment was, "I just don't get it - what on earth could they possibly be praying FOR? and who could they be praying TO?"* It infuriated me for the rest of the day - such bigotry!

And the name of that bigoted, reactionary, intolerant, right-wing Catholic was - you guessed it - Cardinal Roger Mahony!

(*paraphrasing - I didn't save the article and am quoting it as I remember it - probably not the exact words but that's the gist of it!)

Hi LatinTrad,

I think you would agree that the Rhythm Method is obsolete, having been superceded by other means of Natural Family Planning. Would you consider instruction in the Rhythm Method a Church teaching? If so, then it would strike me as an outdated Church teaching.

Peace out,
Irenaeus

Neither the Rhythm Method nor NFP are Church teachings. They are approved methods of complying with Church teaching on contraception. It is entirely probable that other, better methods will be developed which will replace these. But the Church teaching has not changed.

As I learned yesterday from watching the From the Vatican on EWTN, the Cardinals are also voting on the Bishop of Rome, a selection who represents the people of Rome, of course with the other titles,Pope, Vicar of Christ, Patriarch of the West etc etc.

Dare I say someone who the Romans would take to heart quickly ?

james

James,

I'm not sure what you mean by "also voting on the Bishop of Rome." The cardinal electors are only voting to elect the Bishop of Rome. The College of Cardinals as the "clergy of Rome" (bishops, priests, and deacons) have as their primary obligation as cardinals to chose the Bishop of Rome when the See is vacant (cf. CIC Can. 349).