Friday, May 13, 2005

Archbishop Levada Appointed to CDF

Well, what can we say? Our on-the-ground reporting in Rome paid off. The vaticanisti were the first to officially confirm the Levada appointment...even beating out Time Magazine by a few hours. Dear ones, trust the vaticanisti.

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clearly, this is the only silver-lining to the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the See of Peter.

Isn't it ironic. San Francisco reaps the benefit of Ratzinger's election.

Levada's appointment reminds me of a line from Fiddler on the Roof when the Rabbi is asked if there is a blessing for the Czar whereupon the Rabbi replies, "Of course there is...May the Lord bless and keep the Czar...far away from us!"

Paul in SF

10:24 AM  
Blogger vaticanisti said...

Silver-lining? Anonymous--don't forget that the Holy Spirit is at work in the election of a pope. The Vaticanisti don't think we Catholics have to look for a "silver-lining" to the actions of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we need to seek to understand, even in our imperfect human understanding, why God has chosen this man for this time.

As for the benefit to SF to which you allude, if our sources that proved reliable on the Levada news also prove reliable on the Fessio news, SF hasn't seen anything yet. What that Archdiocese needs is continuity with Levada's pastoral care and concern for authentic renewal and adherence to Sacred Tradition. Even if it's not Fessio, though, don't delude yourself into thinking that Benedict XVI would appoint someone in the mold of Abp. Quinn--never going to happen because great care will be taken to appoint new bishops.

Obviously, Benedict XVI saw something in William Levada when Levada worked for Ratzinger. More will come soon on this topic.

12:07 PM  
Anonymous the Vaticanisti suck said...

I would have expected better than syrup-sweet pious bullshit from the Vaticanisti.

Are we now to believe that not only does the Holy Spirit pick out the Pope for the Church (which even Ratzinger himself does not believe) but that He also garauntees the selection of the right head of the CDF? So much so, that there is no need to look for a "silver lining" in an apparently bad appointment because the decision can't be wrong? You really are a bunch of children. Maybe you should be commenting on fairy stories instead of the real world.

I thought you guys were tough-headed. Turns out you're delusionals. You're free to think Leveda is good, if you want, but please don't invoke some theological fairy tale to justify it. Stick to the facts.

12:48 PM  
Anonymous melissa said...

Are we now to believe that not only does the Holy Spirit pick out the Pope for the Church (which even Ratzinger himself does not believe) but that He also garauntees the selection of the right head of the CDF?

Um, read vaticanisti's post again. When he mentioned the Holy Spirit he was talking about Benedict's election, not Levada's appointment. He was addressing the previous poster's statement on finding 'silver linings' in Benedict's election.

3:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vaticanisti:

Please let me clarify my earlier remarks.

1. On the election of Ratzinger:
There has probably not been a less-inspired college of papal electors since the election of then Cardinal Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli in the late 1930's.

John Paul II was clearly stacking the deck for the election of his clone as early as the mid-1980s.

Isn't it interesting that out of 117 or so electors/candidates for the job almost all of whom were elevated to the sacred college by John Paul II, it was one of the three electors elevated to the college by Paul VI who won canonical election. This was a truely uninspired group of guys who didn't even really cozy up to a Ratzinger election until the day of John Paul's funeral.

This election was NOT the work of the Holy Spirit but rather an exercise in Vatican real- politik .

2. Levada:
This is a man who had one foot out the door as soon as he was appointed coadjutor in San Francisco. Everything he did or failed to do as Archbishop of San Francisco was calculated only to seek grace and favor from the Vatican. His handling of the clergy sex-abuse crisis was so BAD, that Jim Jenkins, the man Levada appointed to chair the Review Board in SF quit his post in disgust and made it clear that Levada had manipulated the board and was undermining its findings.

Levada was very slow to act on the removal of key archdiocesan officials against whom credible allegations of molestation were levied including officials of his inner circle. And this is the man Ratzinger has chosen to address the clergy sex-abuse crisis on a world wide level???

3. Successor to Levada:

The very last thing San Francisco Catholics should hope or pray for is anybody even remotely resembling John Raphael Quinn under whose "pastoral care" clergy sexual abuse was prolific and involved key members of his innner circle. Quinn, the bright young thing, also had one foot out the door as soon as he arrived in SF. Of course, he made the mistake of overestimating the value of his own stock at the Vatican when he and Basil Hume suggested alternative approaches to teaching the values of Humane Vite at the Synod on the Family in the early 1980's. He was never forgiven for his one attempt at pastoral honesty.

No. No more Quinns, Levadas or any other grads of PNAC to SF. The clergy of SF should be allowed to emulate the model of ecclesial election exercised by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome (the Cardinals) and elect their own next bishop! If it works (with or without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) for the See of Peter, why can't it work in the See of St. Francis?

Vaticanisti - let's get our heads out of our back-sides and engage each other in meaningful dialogue about what the appointment of William Levada really means for the Universal Church and for SF.

Let's not have a repeat of the silly spin-job that followed the election of Ratzinger in April. This is real-politik. It requires the intelligence and honesty of real adults and not children in a 3rd grade CCD class in 1952.

Paul in SF

6:03 PM  
Blogger vaticanisti said...

First, to "the Vaticanisti suck":

The Vaticanisti think that you have mis-read our comments, perhaps because you failed to read or mis-read the comment to which we were responding (thank you, Melissa). We said that the Holy Spirit guides the ELECTION of the pope. We hope and pray the Holy Spirit will guide the decisions he makes once elected, but are not "deluded" into thinking that the Holy Spirit dictates the decisions that Pope Benedict makes. Of course not--humans still have free will. They can make decisions that conform to and diverge from the will of God--right?

As for silver lining, the person to whom we were responding referred to this appointment as a silver-lining to the election of Benedict; not to the appointment of Levada. Presumably, the purported "silver-lining" is the result of Levada's impending departure from SF. Is this because Levada is perceived as "too conservative" or "too liberal" by Paul? Perhaps he can explain.

Nevertheless, the Vaticanisti's advice to you, "the vaticanisti suck," is that you should read a little more carefully in the future.

Finally, as between you and the Holy Father, we would tend to put more trust in the judgment of Pope Benedict XVI. Remember, oh sometimes friend and sometimes foe of the Vaticanisti, we don't know all the facts, as you so aptly point out at the close of your comment. Nevertheless, we fail to see how the decision to trust the judgment of the Vicar of Christ constitutes the invocation of any "theological fairy tale."

Second, to "Paul":

The Vaticanisti are somewhat unclear as to the meaning of the following:

"Vaticanisti - let's get our heads out of our back-sides and engage each other in meaningful dialogue about what the appointment of William Levada really means for the Universal Church and for SF.

Let's not have a repeat of the silly spin-job that followed the election of Ratzinger in April. This is real-politik. It requires the intelligence and honesty of real adults and not children in a 3rd grade CCD class in 1952."

The Vaticanisti have never advocated anything other than "meaningful dialogue." While we agree with you that another Quinn would be a disaster, while also a complete impossibility (thanks be to God), it is curious that your advocacy for the clergy of SF electing their own bishop sounds curiously like something that might have been lifted from an old Quinn lecture--perhaps in another one of his enlightened moment of "pastoral honesty"?

The Vaticanisti would be curious to find out what you, Paul, in your great, non-3rd-grade-CCD-class-in-1952 wisdom think the new shepherd of San Francisco should bring and, if you dare, whom he should be.

9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The dismal pastoral legacy of John Raphael Quinn speaks for itself.

Plagued by:

1. Sex crimes against children and teens (primarily teenage and pre-teen boys) throughout the archdiocese by predatory clergy including clergy very near and dear to Quinn;

2. Theft of parish and Propogation of the Faith funds by clergy close to Quinn;

3. Two seminaries that were hotbeds of open homosexual activity (especially St. Joseph's College Seminary under the direction of Father Gerald Brown (who was appointed by Levada last year to be rector of St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, CA);

4. Large number of parish closures;

5. Quinn's failure to effectively manage the administration of the archdiocese ( three or four administrative reorganizations of the SF archdiocses delegating more and more Ordinary responsiblity to others) and his mental breakdown immediately following the papal visit to SF in 1987 resulting in his stay at the Institute for Living in Hartford, CT. for a number of months.

Clearly, Quinn has no voice or rightful place in any dialogue concerning the papacy or the pastoral administration of the Church and my suggestion that the clergy of SF should be allowed to vote for their own bishop is certainly not grounded in any lecture (I assume you're referring to the centennial lecture at Campion Hall, Oxford, Summer, 1996) or his book on papacy/primacy.

Rather, it comes only from my desire that SF and every diocese throughout the world be dignified by bishops who really wish to be wedded to their diocese and not see their appointments as stops along the way to further advancement within the hierarchy.

SF needs and deserves a bishop who wants to be bishop here for the rest of his pastoral life. It deserves a bishop whose pastoral decisions are not compromised by his ambition to advance his own career within the Church.

SF needs and deserves a bishop who can speak the Gospel of Truth in truth and not compromise his teaching office by duplicitous pastoral practices like Levada and Mahoney to the south.

What I advocate is simply good pastoral practice and good ecclesiology. Apparently, election of the bishop by the clergy is supposed to work in the Diocese of Rome. Why not give other dioceses a crack at it???

It's Roman-appointed bishops such as Quinn and Levada who have allowed the Church to fall into great disrepute here in the SF Bay Area. The scandals that have come to light during the past ten years implicate both Quinn and Levada in serious failures of pastoral duty and moral judgement. These are not men we would have chosen for ourselves.

Give us a man who doesn't suffer from the personality disorders of Quinn or who is not morally- compromised like Levada.

A man who truly desires only to be wedded to the Church in San Francisco for the rest of his life.

A man who has both feet firmly planted on the blessed terra firma of SF and not the terra firma of Rome.

Give me a man born and raised in SF., familiar with the clergy, parishes and administration of the diocese. Somebody who knows about our history by personal experience.

A man trained in our seminaries who will have personal knowledge of his colleagues in pastoral ministry.

A man who will protect our children and teenage boys from predatory clergy.

A man who will give his life to protect the integrity of the pastoral office of the bishop and for his sheep.

Fessio is not your man and I'm sure Levada will communicate that to Ratzinger.

Perhaps, the only qualified candidate for the job is Danny Walsh in Santa Rosa or Rich Garcia in Sacramento.

I'll let you guys do the research.

Paul in SF

5:20 AM  
Blogger Saint Peter's helpers said...

Silver-lining? I don't think that term belongs to the Catholic faith. History tells us that the Church stands solid regardless of who is Pope or Prefect because as Our Lord promised, He will be with us until the end of time. So instead of complaining about who was made Prefect, or rejoicing over Levada's departure, let's be hopeful rather than fearful. God allows it and so we must accept it. As for the vacant seat of Archbishop of San Francisco, how about if we all make a novena to Our Lady and ask her to send us a holy bishop.

2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St. Peter's Helper:

I can agree that we do need to prary.

We need to pray that never again will decisions concerning the election of the Bishop of Rome, the appointment of the Prefect of CDF or the appointment of the next AB be the byproduct of the intense fear that has forced the leadership of the Catholic into virtual paralysis.

Ratzinger, Levada, the College of Cardinals and the College of Bishops are the men hiding in the upper room and the fear-gripped fishermen tossed about in a boat on a storm driven lake.

These are not the decisions of men at peace with themselves or men acting on the inspiration of the Holy Spirt. These are a group of men in dire need of spiritual guidance and courage.

In any event, we can at least agree to pray.

We must pray for peace for the Church. We must also pray for some honesty and moral integrity for her bishops.

Paul in SF

3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul,

Read the writings of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. This is not a man afraid of facing reality. He is based in reality. He clearly sees the sickness of the church and cultures of the the west and is willing to swallow the hard medicine to begin the road back. He is clearly a man at peace who only took this position because the Cardinals saw that he was uniquely qualified to manage this difficult and dark time. It is clear that the church in Northern California is in need of help. Hopefully we will get a man of Bishop Vigneron's measure. He is really improving things in Oakland.

Steve

5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Steve,

Ratzinger is at peace with himself because he managed his election to the penultimate position of ecclesial authority in the Roman Church. Not bad for a working-class kid from Baveria. Ratzinger started counting the votes last year when it was clear to everybody that the former pontificate was rapidly winding down.

Ratzinger re-opened the investigation of Marcial Maciel earlier this year when it became clear that his previous failure to fully, faithfully and honestly investigate the multiple allegations against this powerful pedaphile would be exposed to world view as he emerged as a candidate for papal election. As prefect of CDF, it was the ultimate shameful exercise in damage control.

It remains to be seen if the same bishops who enabled the filth to infect the very soul of the Roman Church for years and years, decade after decade, can muster the moral integrity to now shepherd the laity, who, by all accounts, are more faithful to the magisterium, clean living and simple human decency than the Roman clergy.

Not until the Roman Church faces up to it's failure to be a faithful witness to Christ in this world, a voice of truth, reason and integrity and comes clean with the faithful, will it ever regain the trust of the faithful and the respect of her own children.

Promoting Levada to Prefect of CDF will not further this cause. It will only serve to remind the faithful that the Church rewards those who excel at hiding her hideous blemishes from the light of day. Levada did his master's bidding here in the US and has been rewarded for his efforts.

I fear that the Archdiocese of San Francisco will not receive a bishop who meets the criteria specified in my earlier message. But we will see. In the meantime, we pray.

All Catholics will need to pray for guidance and seriously consider if they can trust our current array of bishops to lead them out of a moral crisis unknown in the annals of modern Church history - a crisis caused not by the laity but by presbyters and bishops.

If they determine as I have that the Church's bishops no longer possess the moral integrity to lead the People of God, they will have to wander into the wilderness and seek the Lord where he may be found. And the Lord is certainly out there to be found.

It requires alot of courage to face the up to the truth and take that first big step along the spiritual Via Appia away from Mother Church who should have been but failed to be for the People of God, Mater et Magistra - Mother and Teacher.

Paul in SF

9:00 PM  
Anonymous melissa said...

Ratzinger is at peace with himself because he managed his election to the penultimate position of ecclesial authority in the Roman Church. Not bad for a working-class kid from Baveria. Ratzinger started counting the votes last year when it was clear to everybody that the former pontificate was rapidly winding down.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, Paul, until I read the above. After that I'm afraid I can't take you seriously ...

6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Melissa,

Eventually, one of the cardinal-electors is bound to tell us more about the very strange pre-conclave lobbying which resulted in the election of Ratzinger. It's just a matter of time.

I find it hard to believe that a man who signed his name as "Benedict" to a letter several years prior to his canonical election as Bishop of Rome and who held his clasped hands and raised his arms in a sort of Rocky Balboa victory gesture from the logia following the announcement of his election never really desired the results of this election.

I'm more than a bit sceptical about the influence of the Holy Spirit in his election.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt up to this point and rest assured I can live another day even in the knowledge that you can no longer take me seriously.

Paul - SF

5:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Follow-up on earlier Blog...

Eventually, one of the cardinal-electors is bound to tell us more about the very strange pre-conclave lobbying which resulted in the election of Ratzinger. It's just a matter of time.


Posted in Catholic World News 9-23-05:


Unknown cardinal breaks secrecy, describes conclave

Rome, Sep. 23 (CWNews.com) - Breaking his oath of secrecy, a member of the College of Cardinals has given a detailed description of the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news), an Italian television network has reported.


In an evening news program that aired on September 22, TG2 television reported that a cardinal, speaking on condition of anonymity, had given a full account of the papal election to the Italian journal Limes.

Paul - SF

9:30 AM  
Blogger Adi said...

Find Internet Marketing resource hare Online Marketing Strategy | Internet Marketing Tools | Online Marketing Campaign | Online Marketing Business | Online Marketing System | Online Business | Online Home Business | Online Business Tips | Internet Marketing Online

6:35 AM  
Blogger Adi said...

Oes Tsetnoc one of the ways in which we can learn seo besides Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa. By participating in the Oes Tsetnoc or Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa we can improve our seo skills. To find more information about Oest Tsetnoc please visit my Oes Tsetnoc pages. And to find more information about Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa please visit my Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa pages. Thank you So much.
Oes Tsetnoc | Semangat Mengembalikan Jati Diri Bangsa

10:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home