At Mahony's Rel Ed Congress, The Only "Orthodox" Speaker is Jewish
JONATHAN E. NAVAL
(Reprinted from The Wanderer)
LOS ANGELES - Even though the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' annual religious eduction congress, Feb. 19th-22nd, doesn't feature any known
orthodox Catholics among its dozens of speakers, the event will be "wonderful," promise its sponsors and organizers.
Most of the 142 speakers come from Amchurch's stock of first and second string heretical catechist, dissident theologians, sex
educators, homosexual apologists, modernist liturgists, episcopal mavericks, and other assorted aberrant types. There will be one "orthodox"
speaker, however: popular radio talk-show counselor Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
The gathering of some 18,000 cathecists will be, said Roger Cardinal Mahony, host of the event, a "wonderful opportunity" to "renew
our commitment to pass on the rich story of our faith," and a time to be "enriched and renewed by the wonderful variety of excellent
workshops."
Congress organizer, Sr. Edith Prendergast, director of religious education for all the archdiocese, a member of Call to Action, and a
former CTA board member, also promised a "wonderful" time for all.
She promised that the congress would be a "wonderful celebration of our faith," and a "wonderful opportunity . . . to gather as church,"
and an empowering of the Spirit "to go froth and call others to wholeness."
And Mike Norman reiterated the "wonderful" word. Norman, coordinator of youth ministry for the archdiocese, said that the congress
would be a "wonderful day of community, challenge, fun, and prayer."
Who and what's in store for those attending this year's conference, centered on the theme, "Imaging Love: Empowering Lives"?
The keynote speaker will be Milwaukee's own Archibishop Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B., who just a half year ago blasted Pope John
Paul II for derailing the liturgical renewal envisioned by Vatican II. His scheduled talk will be "How Can the Church Become More Christ-Like, a
Place of Healing and New Life?"
Another episcopal dissenter on hand will be Bishop Kenneth E. Untener of Saginaw, Mich., who will speak on enlivening the liturgy.
Notable, the liberal Commonweal magazine reported last June that the typical Mass in his diocese is "clearly a meal of bread and wine, not of the
body and blood of Christ."
Amchurch's libertine sex ed. agenda will come through loud and clear, with such speakers as L.A.'s own pro-homosexual activist, Fr.
Peter Liuzzi, O.Carm., who will speak on "Our Family Secret" - "coming out stories" told by parents and children.
Other kindred souls at the congress include Humanae Vitae dissenter and author of the fetid New Creation program, Richard Reichert,
along with his fellow sex ed. proponent Pulist Fr. Richard Sparks, one of the U.S. bishops' top gurus. Also speaking will be sex education
advocate Kathleen Chesto, sex educator Bob Bartlett, and two of former Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen's closes advisers, the nun
priest team of St. Fran Ferder and Fr. John Heagle.
(Ferder, Wanderer readers will recall, was a key but very uncooperative witness in Seattle's clerical pedophilia lawsuits, stemming from
her treatment of pedophiles and her psychological screening of seminarians for the priesthood in Seattle.)
Predictably part and parcel of Amchurch's libertine agenda, a number of liturgists who create AIDS liturgies will be on hand for the
catechists, including Robert Piercy, Jr., who specializes in AIDS ministry and rites and rituals; and Fr. Chris Ponnett, who works in AIDS ministry
in Los Angeles and has helped liturgist Bob Hurd with AIDS liturgies and concerts.
Accompanying these assorted sex ed. advocates is a clutch of their modernist peers engaged in deconstructing the liturgy, such as Fr.
John Gallen, S.J., former editor of Modern Liturgy; Sr. Linda Gaupin, former associate director of the U.S. bishops' liturgy office in Washington,
who will speak on the Children's Lectionary; and Fr. John Allyn Melloh from Notre Dame, who will speak on the connection between the liturgy
and the marketplace.
Many of the "liturgists" present will be speaking on themes raised in Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter on the liturgy.
Albany/Chicago's Fr. Richard Fragomeni will discuss "the implications" of Mahony's pastoral and is "significant insights."
Chicago's former director of evangelization, Fr. Patrick Brennan, a regular attraction at Call to Action conferences and a leading
proponent of "the old church is dead," will also speak about liturgical renewal.
The majority of presentations at the four-day conference will focus on Amchurch's concept of "spirituality": self-love, self-affirmation,
tuning in to one's inner person, and so on. Julie Howard's presentation will be on "One of a Kind: A Music-Based Self-esteem Program," which
will "demonstrate a lively, interactive, and interdisciplinary approach to teaching the Gospel values of love, respect, self-trust, awareness, non
violence, generosity, and thankfulness. Through song, movement, art, drama, and story, participants will be shown ways to help children really
believe they are 'one of a kind'."
Similarly, Carole Goodwin will talk about "Games of Life: Discovering Who I Am," in which participants will explore: how gender
impacts the development of a healthy identity . . . and how popular games can be used to explore such issues with young people in religious
education and youth
ministry settings.
And psychiatrist Fred Elias will help participants "reach their full potential."
Sr. Norma Gutierrez, M.C.D.P., will talk about how it feels when you're 15 and you experience such tragedies as a boyfriend dying in a
car crash or being from a "new family system."
The Hard Core
Many of those scheduled to speak at this year's conference are regulars, Mahony's hard-core, battle-hardened heretics:
Theologian Fr. Michael Crosby, O.F.M., whose popular book, The Dysfunctional Church, is a tirade against Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and
Pope John Paul II.
Columnist Dolores Curran, who dared her bishop to excommunicate her because she still believes that women should be ordained.
Inactive priest Joseph Girzone, author of the puerile and immensely popular Joshua books which present a mythical Jesus to a popular
audience, and his associate, Sr. Dorothy Ederer, O.P., will speak on "have You Met the Real Jesus?"
Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr, who was reprimanded by his archbishop, Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, N.M., last year for blessing the
marriage of a lesbian couple, will speak on "The Male Spiritual Journey."
Jim DeBoy of Baltimore, a longtime leader in the liberal-modernist catechetical establishment in Baltimore, will speak on "Becoming More
spirit-Filled Communities in the 21st Century." Just recently, he was appointed by William Cardinal Keeler to be the director of the Division
of Leadership Development for the Baltimore Archdiocese, the most powerful post in the Baltimore bureaucracy.
Fr. Kenan Osborne, O.F.M., a sacramental theologian and professor of systematic theology at the Franciscan School of Theology, Berkeley,
and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, will be speaking on "a methodology of teaching the sacrament: in a
world of ecology, science, and technology.
Osborne has written extensively on the sacraments, and, wrote one reviewer of his books, Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap., in the
Fellowship of Catholic Scholars newsletter, he "seems embarrassed by the doctrine of original sin, almost as though it were something
best forgotten. In addition, he seems unable to articulate the concept of transubstantiation in a manner that would benefit
contemporary understanding."
Michael Downey, who last year was one of the major dissenters in the Archdiocese of Louisville, Ky., at his post at Bellarmine College, is
now teaching at Cardinal Mahony's St. John's Seminary in Camarillo. He will speak on "The Hope That Is Within You."
In addition to these, the husband-wife team of ex-priest and ex-nun Carey Landry and Carol Landry will be on hand to show how music can
influence young children.
Like most of the religious education congresses the Los Angeles Archdiocese has sponsored in the past, this year's will give little or no
consideration to The Catechism of the Catholic Church and its call for the teaching of the Church's doctrine.
But that's hardly surprising, for doctrine is an obstacle to self-actualization, which is what the Newchurch is all about.
Jim Pauwels
In article <6bqatr$4...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
JONATHAN E. NAVAL <LAn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> (Reprinted from The Wanderer)
>
> LOS ANGELES - Even though the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' annual
>religious eduction congress, Feb. 19th-22nd, doesn't feature any known
> orthodox Catholics among its dozens of speakers, the event will be
>"wonderful," promise its sponsors and organizers.
> Most of the 142 speakers come from Amchurch's stock of first and
>second string heretical catechist, dissident theologians, sex
> educators, homosexual apologists, modernist liturgists, episcopal mavericks,
>and other assorted aberrant types.
[snip remainder of bile]
The Wanderer's capacity for hatred is remarkable. Breathtaking, really.
Jim
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Mark Johnson
Jim Pauwels <jpau...@asapsoftware.com> wrote:
>The Wanderer's capacity for hatred is remarkable. Breathtaking, really.
Or yours, am I right?
If you think they lie - say - they lie. Then tell me how. But if it
just bugs ya that someone's calling the bluff of the 'spirit of'
crowd, don't be such a hypocrite.
Peace.
Edward Thorne
In <887317743...@dejanews.com> Jim Pauwels
<jpau...@asapsoftware.com> writes:
>
>In article <6bqatr$4...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> JONATHAN E. NAVAL <LAn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> LOS ANGELES - Even though the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' annual
>>religious eduction congress, Feb. 19th-22nd, doesn't feature any
known
>> orthodox Catholics among its dozens of speakers, the event will be
>>"wonderful," promise its sponsors and organizers.
>> Most of the 142 speakers come from Amchurch's stock of first and
>>second string heretical catechist, dissident theologians, sex
>> educators, homosexual apologists, modernist liturgists, episcopal
mavericks,
>>and other assorted aberrant types.
>
>
>The Wanderer's capacity for hatred is remarkable. Breathtaking,
really.
>
>
Hmmnn ...Interesting comment.
I have been subscribing to the Wanderer for over a year,now, and see no
hatred there, only a deep love for the teachings of Jesus Christ and of
the Church.
I have a question for you, Jim: Why is it that you and people like you
accuse those with whom you disagree of hatred?
Is it because you instinctively feel that you have lost the arguement?
Is that why you and those like you seem reflexively to resort to name
calling at the 1st drop of the hat?
"Credo ...in unam, sanctam, Catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam."
Ed
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <6c7phe$8...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
> In <887317743...@dejanews.com> Jim Pauwels
> <jpau...@asapsoftware.com> writes:
> >
> >In article <6bqatr$4...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> > JONATHAN E. NAVAL <LAn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> LOS ANGELES - Even though the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' annual
> >>religious eduction congress, Feb. 19th-22nd, doesn't feature any
> known
> >> orthodox Catholics among its dozens of speakers, the event will be
> >>"wonderful," promise its sponsors and organizers.
> >> Most of the 142 speakers come from Amchurch's stock of first and
> >>second string heretical catechist, dissident theologians, sex
> >> educators, homosexual apologists, modernist liturgists, episcopal
> mavericks,
> >>and other assorted aberrant types.
> >
> >
> >The Wanderer's capacity for hatred is remarkable. Breathtaking,
> really.
> >
> >Jim
> >
>
> Hmmnn ...Interesting comment.
>
> I have been subscribing to the Wanderer for over a year,now, and see no
> hatred there, only a deep love for the teachings of Jesus Christ and of
> the Church.
>
> I have a question for you, Jim: Why is it that you and people like you
> accuse those with whom you disagree of hatred?
>
> Is it because you instinctively feel that you have lost the arguement?
>
> Is that why you and those like you seem reflexively to resort to name
> calling at the 1st drop of the hat?
>
> "Credo ...in unam, sanctam, Catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam."
>
> Ed
Dear Ed,
Why do I accuse them of hatred? Because their editorial content seems to be
rife with it. That's my impression. Feel free to disregard my impression if
it doesn't jibe with your's. I sense the hatred in nearly every paragraph.
I can't speak for "those like me" (who are they, BTW?). Speaking for myself,
I don't accuse my opponents of hatred when it's not justified. For example,
I'm sure you and I disagree about the Wanderer, but in my short and
semi-frequent visits here, I've seen no hatred from you. In fact, from what
I can tell, you normally adopt a firm but courteous tone. Even when you
disagree, you act with charity. Would that the Wanderer had your generosity
of spirit.
Do I feel I've lost the argument? No. What is the argument, and who's
arguing? I'm simply making a reasonable observation.
As for calling names, I haven't called anybody any names in this thread,
deservedly or otherwise. The Wanderer, on the other hand, used at least five
pejoratives (and a couple of other words that they would probably erroneously
consider pejorative) just in the short section I quoted.
Here's my gratuitous advice to the Wanderer: try to work a bit more of the
"sanctam" into your editorial content.
Jim
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <34e5cee...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> Jim Pauwels <jpau...@asapsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >The Wanderer's capacity for hatred is remarkable. Breathtaking, really.
>
You go first this time, okay?
> If you think they lie - say - they lie. Then tell me how. But if it
> just bugs ya that someone's calling the bluff of the 'spirit of'
> crowd, don't be such a hypocrite.
If someone's hatred blinds them to the truth, then I don't think that makes
them culpable of lying. Just culpable of hatred.
I'm not bugged about any bluffs being called - in fact, the only bluff I see
is the Wanderer's attempts at journalistic credibility - so it would seem
that you haven't called me a hypocrite, and I'm therefore under no
compunction to forgive you for it.
Edward Thorne
In <6ca2h7$3q1$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
>
>In article <6c7phe$8...@sjx-ixn1.ix.netcom.com>,
> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>>
>> In <887317743...@dejanews.com> Jim Pauwels
>> <jpau...@asapsoftware.com> writes:
>> >
>> >In article <6bqatr$4...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>> > JONATHAN E. NAVAL <LAn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> LOS ANGELES - Even though the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' annual
>> >>religious eduction congress, Feb. 19th-22nd, doesn't feature any
>> known
>> >> orthodox Catholics among its dozens of speakers, the event will
be
>> >>"wonderful," promise its sponsors and organizers.
>> >> Most of the 142 speakers come from Amchurch's stock of first and
>> >>second string heretical catechist, dissident theologians, sex
>> >> educators, homosexual apologists, modernist liturgists, episcopal
>> mavericks,
>> >>and other assorted aberrant types.
>> >
>> >
>> >The Wanderer's capacity for hatred is remarkable. Breathtaking,
>> really.
>> >
Well, thanx for the _kudoi_; kudoi, freely and sincerely offered is
gladly accepted.
>
>Do I feel I've lost the argument? No. What is the argument, and
who's
>arguing? I'm simply making a reasonable observation.
>
>As for calling names, I haven't called anybody any names in this
thread,
>deservedly or otherwise. The Wanderer, on the other hand, used at
least five
>pejoratives (and a couple of other words that they would probably
erroneously
>consider pejorative) just in the short section I quoted.
Well, were not those adjectives rightly deserved?
[SNIP]
Mark Johnson
jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>In article <34e5cee...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> Jim Pauwels <jpau...@asapsoftware.com> wrote:
>I'm not bugged about any bluffs being called - in fact, the only bluff I see
>is the Wanderer's attempts at journalistic credibility - so it would seem
>that you haven't called me a hypocrite, and I'm therefore under no
>compunction to forgive you for it.
I see.
But if you think they lied in that report - say so. Make your case.
Show some credibility of your own, here, right? And if you want to
accuse them of hatred, you might _try_ disguising your hatred a
little. Because if you can't make the case, then what else is it? I
_have_ called you a hypocrite. It seems a reasonable thing to say.
That's all.
Peace.
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <34eb5751...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>
> >In article <34e5cee...@news.pacbell.net>,
> > 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> >> Jim Pauwels <jpau...@asapsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not bugged about any bluffs being called - in fact, the only bluff I see
> >is the Wanderer's attempts at journalistic credibility - so it would seem
> >that you haven't called me a hypocrite, and I'm therefore under no
> >compunction to forgive you for it.
>
> I see.
>
> But if you think they lied in that report - say so. Make your case.
> Show some credibility of your own, here, right?
You're blessed with literacy, so please read what I wrote. You seem to have
web access, so go into Deja News, and re-read this thread. You've got to get
past this mistaken impression that I've accused the Wanderer of lying if you
want to have a conversation with me here.
>And if you want to
> accuse them of hatred, you might _try_ disguising your hatred a
> little. Because if you can't make the case, then what else is it?
I don't hate the Wanderer. Believe me at your convenience. And if a case
need be made - actually, the original piece makes it more eloquently than my
explication ever could - I made it in reply to Edward Thorne. It's stored
for posterity on the UseNet. http://www.dejanews.com. Click on Search
Filter. Search for this topic: "Re: At Mahony's Rel Ed Congress, The Only
"Orthodox" Speaker is Jewish" Then, click on the View Thread button.
>I _have_ called you a hypocrite. It seems a reasonable thing to say.
> That's all.
Then I forgive you. And if you can find it within yourself to apologize -
even privately - then more likely than not I'll accept it.
>
> Peace.
>
And to you.
Mark Johnson
jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>In article <34eb5751...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> But if you think they lied in that report - say so. Make your case.
>> Show some credibility of your own, here, right?
>You're blessed with literacy, so please read what I wrote. You seem to have
>web access, so go into Deja News, and re-read this thread. You've got to get
>past this mistaken impression that I've accused the Wanderer of lying if you
>want to have a conversation with me here.
I figured that's what you meant. So are you accusing them of some vice
for telling the truth and telling it fairly? Is that it?
>>I _have_ called you a hypocrite. It seems a reasonable thing to say.
>> That's all.
>Then I forgive you. And if you can find it within yourself to apologize -
>even privately - then more likely than not I'll accept it.
Well, but you _are_ the hypocrite. That's just how it looks. Your
hatred for the Wanderer seems apparent. You are the 'enlightened',
they are the 'evil ones'. I can't believe your opinion is any less
simplistic than that.
But, you know what? You could explain yourself, if you think I've got
you just all wrong. Don't give me DejaNews. I've got more articles in
various threads that never even _show up_ on DejaNews, or
Reference.com . I want to know what you've got against the Wanderer,
and why. I've suggested above it looks like some unthinking
ideological hatred, of some sort. So I'll guess at _that_. Am I wrong?
Peace.
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <34f1c5d6...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>
> >In article <34eb5751...@news.pacbell.net>,
> > 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> >> But if you think they lied in that report - say so. Make your case.
> >> Show some credibility of your own, here, right?
>
> >You're blessed with literacy, so please read what I wrote. You seem to have
> >web access, so go into Deja News, and re-read this thread. You've got to get
> >past this mistaken impression that I've accused the Wanderer of lying if you
> >want to have a conversation with me here.
>
> I figured that's what you meant. So are you accusing them of some vice
> for telling the truth and telling it fairly? Is that it?
>
> >>I _have_ called you a hypocrite. It seems a reasonable thing to say.
> >> That's all.
>
> >Then I forgive you. And if you can find it within yourself to apologize -
> >even privately - then more likely than not I'll accept it.
>
> Well, but you _are_ the hypocrite. That's just how it looks.
Ad hominems. *yawn*.
> Your
> hatred for the Wanderer seems apparent. You are the 'enlightened',
> they are the 'evil ones'. I can't believe your opinion is any less
> simplistic than that.
Whatever.
> But, you know what? You could explain yourself, if you think I've got
> you just all wrong. Don't give me DejaNews. I've got more articles in
> various threads that never even _show up_ on DejaNews, or
> Reference.com . I want to know what you've got against the Wanderer,
> and why.
Then re-read the article, and re-read my original response. It's all there.
That's all there is. If you want to cross-examine me, then depose me or
indict me. Until then, deal with it, dude.
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <6cae4l$n...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
> In <6ca2h7$3q1$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
> >> >In article <6bqatr$4...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> > JONATHAN E. NAVAL <LAn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> (Reprinted from The Wanderer)
> >> >>
> >> >> LOS ANGELES - Even though the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' annual
> >> >>religious eduction congress, Feb. 19th-22nd, doesn't feature any
> >> known
> >> >> orthodox Catholics among its dozens of speakers, the event will
> be
> >> >>"wonderful," promise its sponsors and organizers.
> >> >> Most of the 142 speakers come from Amchurch's stock of first and
> >> >>second string heretical catechist, dissident theologians, sex
> >> >> educators, homosexual apologists, modernist liturgists, episcopal
> >> mavericks,
> >> >>and other assorted aberrant types.
> > I haven't called anybody any names in this thread,
> > deservedly or otherwise. The Wanderer, on the other hand, used at
> > least five pejoratives (and a couple of other words that they would
> > probably erroneously consider pejorative) just in the short section I quoted.
> Well, were not those adjectives rightly deserved?
Were they? Let's look at them:
1. "Heretical catechists". I'm not an attorney, but that charge seems to
carry the potential of libel - very likely false, written intentionally, and
conceivably damaging to the catechists' professional career. What is the
basis for the Wanderer's declaration of heresy? Has the church declared that
any of these catechists are teaching heresy? If not, then prudence and
charity would seem to dictate that they withhold the charge.
2. "Dissident theologians". Without knowing more about them, I can't really
comment, I suppose. I don't doubt that some of them do dissent. But do
"most" of them dissent publicly? Do "most" of them teach or promote their
dissent at the conference? If so, and only if so, then they shouldn't
appear. Otherwise, what is the objection? I highly doubt that "most" of
them are promoting dissent at this conference. Perhaps the Wanderer has
proof that they haven't shared. Otherwise, the charge strikes me as
irresponsible.
3. "Modernist liturgists". Modernism is a heresy (or a cluster of
heresies), so the same objections apply here that were spelled out in #1
above. If the church has declared that these liturgists are promoting
heresy, then by all means they shouldn't appear at the conference. But
lacking that official declaration, then the Wanderer would seem to have gone
too far here. How uncharitable of them.
4. "Episcopal mavericks". Well, I suppose some of the bishops could be
characterized as "mavericks". I won't really dispute it. I believe the
article cited Bishop Untener (IIRC). If the Wanderer wants to call him a
maverick, I suppose that's not really out of bounds. In fact, a maverick
isn't always a bad thing, is it? Mother Angelica is a maverick.
As journalism, it may leave a bit to be desired. "Maverick" is a colorful
adjective that isn't very precise. For example, it may give readers the
impression that these bishops don't toe the line on matters of faith and
morals (which I'm sure we would agree isn't the case). So I guess I object
to the rhetorical style here, more than the substance.
5. "Abberent types". Not sure what can be said about this one, other than
that it is irresponsible and inflammatory.
We could go into "Amchurch" and "homosexual apologists", but that's enough
analysis for now.
Overall, my impression is that the journal is too free and easy with the
charges it makes. Granted, there is a certain pleasure to be had in reading
vigorous prose, but personally I also crave responsibility and sober
judgment. There is more than a bit too much of Rush Limbaugh, and not nearly
enough of Walter Cronkite, in the Wanderer.
Demonizing and dehumanizing opponents, as they do in this story, strikes me
as hateful. When they lash out irresponsibly, as they do here, as they did
against Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter, they damage not only their
opponents, but the church.
And it's not just that a cardinal's reputation may be damaged - I'm sure he
can survive that - but also that the Wanderer's very approach wounds the
church. *They* are damaging the church when they engage in this
irresponsible rhetoric, regardless of their targets.
I always ask myself, "What is their *goal* for publishing this?". Do they
hope the conference would thereby be cancelled? That the roster of speakers
would be revised? The Wanderer may view either option as a worthy goal, but
surely there are more responsible and effective means of realizing those
goals than trashing reputations in a national journal. I see this trashing
as mean-spirited and spiteful - in short, hateful.
Just my opinion.
Mark Johnson
jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>In article <34f1c5d6...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>> jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>> Well, but you _are_ the hypocrite. That's just how it looks.
>Ad hominems. *yawn*.
No, I'm not calling you names. Get it straight. If it is as it
appears, and you've written nothing to suggest otherwise, your attack
on the Wanderer seemed hypocritcal, to me, for the reasons I gave.
>> But, you know what? You could explain yourself, if you think I've got
>> you just all wrong. Don't give me DejaNews. I've got more articles in
>> various threads that never even _show up_ on DejaNews, or
>> Reference.com . I want to know what you've got against the Wanderer,
>> and why.
>Then re-read the article, and re-read my original response. It's all there.
It's just a bunch of vague sentiment. I asked a fair question. _You_
were the one making the charge against this newspaper. You haven't
even _tried_ to back it up or explain what you meant. It's just a slam
at the paper because, I guess, you think they are the 'enemy', being
faithful Catholics and all. What else am I supposed to think? That's
how it seems, and it's what I told you.
>That's all there is. If you want to cross-examine me, then depose me or
>indict me.
Gosh, just some simple questions, here. This isn't NYPD Blue. It's
UseNet. You leveled some charges against a paper I think didn't
deserved it. And you have _yet_ to bother explaining yourself. Doesn't
take a court order. I'm just askin you, what's up? What's the problem?
Peace.
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <34ecdea1...@news.pacbell.net>,
1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
> Gosh, just some simple questions, here. This isn't NYPD Blue. It's
> UseNet. You leveled some charges against a paper I think didn't
> deserved it. And you have _yet_ to bother explaining yourself. Doesn't
> take a court order. I'm just askin you, what's up? What's the problem?
Oh, probably something about being called a hypocrite (still waiting for the
apology), and being unjustly accused of calling someone else a liar.
But I waxed expansive a little later yesterday in a reply to Edward Thorne.
Check it out, and have at it.
Edward Thorne
In <34f1c5d6...@news.pacbell.net> 1023...@compuserve.com (Mark
Johnson) writes:
>
>jpau...@asapsoftware.com wrote:
>
>>In article <34eb5751...@news.pacbell.net>,
>> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
Concerning the title to this posting, it comes from a headline in the
Wanderer.
The headline refers to Dr Laura Schlessinger, an Orthodox Jew, who
converted to Judaism from ....CATHOLICISM!
Edward Thorne
If those catechists are not teaching what the church teaches, then they
are indeed heretical. What is wrong with that? Do you think that the
Wanderer is just throwing adjectives around without evidence to back
them up?
Furthermore, didn't a committee of bishops call most of the
catechetical books in use in this country flawed on matters of
doctrine? How do you think that they got that way?
>
>2. "Dissident theologians". Without knowing more about them, I can't
really
>comment, I suppose. I don't doubt that some of them do dissent. But
do
>"most" of them dissent publicly? Do "most" of them teach or promote
their
>dissent at the conference?
Well, we have the McGuires, McSorleys, McBriens, Reuthers, etc etc etc.
No hatred here. Only sound judgement.
If so, and only if so, then they shouldn't
>appear. Otherwise, what is the objection? I highly doubt that "most"
of
>them are promoting dissent at this conference. Perhaps the Wanderer
has
>proof that they haven't shared. Otherwise, the charge strikes me as
>irresponsible.
Well, there is ample proof that has been published in many places,
including, of course, the Wanderer.
>
>3. "Modernist liturgists". Modernism is a heresy (or a cluster of
>heresies), so the same objections apply here that were spelled out in
#1
>above.
Well, that is right! The church is indeed infected with the taint of
Modernism, or as Paul VI put, the smoke of Satan has entered the
chancery ...orsomething like that.
If the church has declared that these liturgists are promoting
>heresy, then by all means they shouldn't appear at the conference.
But
>lacking that official declaration, then the Wanderer would seem to
have gone
>too far here. How uncharitable of them.
Well, it is official declarations that we are clamoring for, and we
have, indeed, the right to clamor.
Besides, there are liturgists who are downplaying the church's teaching
on xsubstantiation. --they want a more Protestant definition. That is
why so much abuse is creeping into the Mass ---that is why the people
are losing their understanding and faith in the Eucharist.
>
>4. "Episcopal mavericks". Well, I suppose some of the bishops could
be
>characterized as "mavericks". I won't really dispute it. I believe
the
>article cited Bishop Untener (IIRC). If the Wanderer wants to call
him a
>maverick, I suppose that's not really out of bounds. In fact, a
maverick
>isn't always a bad thing, is it?
Well, that depends upon the maverick, like Sullivan, Hunthausen,
Hubbard, Clark, etc etc etc
They ought to be bounced out of the chancery!
> Mother Angelica is a maverick.
She is indeed a maverick, to the dissenters. They sure don't like her!
>
>As journalism, it may leave a bit to be desired. "Maverick" is a
colorful
>adjective that isn't very precise. For example, it may give readers
the
>impression that these bishops don't toe the line on matters of faith
and
>morals (which I'm sure we would agree isn't the case).
Well, I think it is the case.
I heard an American abp opine on the acceptability of female clergy.
Can you imagine that?
>So I guess I object
>to the rhetorical style here, more than the substance.
As for the substance, the Wanderer is right on.
As for the adjectives, well, one can always change the adjectives, but
they always add up to the same thing: Modernism, dissent.
>
>5. "Abberent types". Not sure what can be said about this one, other
than
>that it is irresponsible and inflammatory.
>
>We could go into "Amchurch" and "homosexual apologists", but that's
enough
>analysis for now.
Yes, let's leave Bp Clark out of it for now.
>
>Overall, my impression is that the journal is too free and easy with
the
>charges it makes. Granted, there is a certain pleasure to be had in
reading
>vigorous prose, but personally I also crave responsibility and sober
>judgment. There is more than a bit too much of Rush Limbaugh, and not
nearly
>enough of Walter Cronkite, in the Wanderer.
Waler
Cronkite?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
....a thoroughgoing rationalist and modernist!
And not even a good newscaster either.
>
>Demonizing and dehumanizing opponents, as they do in this story,
strikes me
>as hateful.
No, they are calling a spade a spade. What is wrong with that?
While they are zealous for the integrity of the faith, there are those
who are not; they would rather that the church would be remade
according to their own lights and in their own image.
> When they lash out irresponsibly, as they do here, as they did
>against Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter, they damage not only their
>opponents, but the church.
No, Mahony is already allowing damage to the church.
>
>And it's not just that a cardinal's reputation may be damaged - I'm
sure he
>can survive that - but also that the Wanderer's very approach wounds
the
>church. *They* are damaging the church when they engage in this
>irresponsible rhetoric, regardless of their targets.
Defending the church is damaging the church?
>
>I always ask myself, "What is their *goal* for publishing this?". Do
they
>hope the conference would thereby be cancelled? That the roster of
speakers
>would be revised? The Wanderer may view either option as a worthy
goal, but
>surely there are more responsible and effective means of realizing
those
>goals than trashing reputations in a national journal. I see this
trashing
>as mean-spirited and spiteful - in short, hateful.
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>Jim
>
Ahh ...there we go ... mean-sprited ...hateful.
It is just like Modernists and their ilk, and the Clintonites and their
camarilla in Congress....when they lose the battle, they call their
opponents names.
What an illustration of "liberal" thinking: I would never have
believed it had I not seen it here with my own two eyes!
[I wish we had a better word to use than liberal; liberal is just too
good a word to waste on these types.]
Edward Thorne
In <6chi9k$5hh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
>
>In article <34ecdea1...@news.pacbell.net>,
> 1023...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
>> Gosh, just some simple questions, here. This isn't NYPD Blue. It's
>> UseNet. You leveled some charges against a paper I think didn't
>> deserved it. And you have _yet_ to bother explaining yourself.
Doesn't
>> take a court order. I'm just askin you, what's up? What's the
problem?
>
>Oh, probably something about being called a hypocrite (still waiting
for the
>apology), and being unjustly accused of calling someone else a liar.
>
>But I waxed expansive a little later yesterday in a reply to Edward
Thorne.
>Check it out, and have at it.
>
>Jim
>
jpau...@asapsoftware.com
In article <6cinrh$r...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>
> In <6cf1k7$dsh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
> >Overall, my impression is that the journal is too free and easy with
> > the charges it makes. Granted, there is a certain pleasure to be had in
> > reading vigorous prose, but personally I also crave responsibility and sober
> >judgment. There is more than a bit too much of Rush Limbaugh, and not
> > nearly enough of Walter Cronkite, in the Wanderer.
> Waler
> Cronkite?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
> ....a thoroughgoing rationalist and modernist!
>
> And not even a good newscaster either.
Dear Ed,
I must admit - you made me laugh when I read that. Not laughing at you -
it's just the first time that I've ever seen Walter Cronkite assailed :-).
How can you say that about UNCLE WALTER? <tongue in cheek>. I must admit
that, among my thoughts about Walter Cronkite, "thoroughgoing rationalist and
modernist" wasn't there. I've never really thought about it. I'll take your
word for it :-)
When I chose Cronkite, I was reaching for the anti-Rush Limbaugh - a
journalistic icon who wouldn't let ideology get in the way of reporting the
facts. How about if I say, " ... too much of Rush Limbaugh, and not nearly
enough of the New York Times"?
Jim <-- Curious to see if anyone has anything against the Times.
Edward Thorne
In <6ckk1d$hq0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com writes:
>
>In article <6cinrh$r...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
> eth...@ix.netcom.com(Edward Thorne) wrote:
>>
>> In <6cf1k7$dsh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> jpau...@asapsoftware.com
writes:
>
>> >Overall, my impression is that the journal is too free and easy
with
>> > the charges it makes. Granted, there is a certain pleasure to be
had in
>> > reading vigorous prose, but personally I also crave responsibility
and sober
>> >judgment. There is more than a bit too much of Rush Limbaugh, and
not
>> > nearly enough of Walter Cronkite, in the Wanderer.
>
>> Waler
>>
Cronkite?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>>
>> ....a thoroughgoing rationalist and modernist!
>>
>> And not even a good newscaster either.
>
>
>I must admit - you made me laugh when I read that. Not laughing at
you -
>it's just the first time that I've ever seen Walter Cronkite assailed
:-).
>How can you say that about UNCLE WALTER? <tongue in cheek>. I must
admit
>that, among my thoughts about Walter Cronkite, "thoroughgoing
rationalist and
>modernist" wasn't there. I've never really thought about it. I'll
take your
>word for it :-)
>
>When I chose Cronkite, I was reaching for the anti-Rush Limbaugh - a
>journalistic icon who wouldn't let ideology get in the way of
reporting the
not nearly
>enough of the New York Times"?
>
>Jim <-- Curious to see if anyone has anything against the Times.
Well, I don't read the NY Times. I am stuck with the Potomac Sewer.
I stopped getting the Wash Times because I have a dispute about their
delivery system.
As for Cronkite, he liked to filter the news too much, so that there
was too much of Walter, and not enough of the news.
"Credo ...in unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam."
Ed
AgThorn
Well, Jim, I am most certainly a "wantabe" defender of Mahoney, as I do
know of a lot of "good" that he is doing and has done but I do believe that
he has resorted to all that the wanderer article has labeled his
"congress", i.e.
>1. "Heretical catechists".
>2. "Dissident theologians".
>3. "Modernist liturgists".
>4. "Episcopal mavericks".
>5. "Abberent types".
As you study more and more of what is going on within the archdiocese, as
the following article kinda indicates, it is most definitely NOT Christian,
but quite "comfortable" I am sure for many:
==========================================================================
At Respect Life Conference....
Cardinal Grabs Microphone, Bloodying Lip Of Pro-Lifer
(5 Feb. 1998 - Special to The Wanderer)
LOS ANGELES - It's common knowledge in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that
Roger Cardinal Mahony dislikes criticism. But now comes an incident in
which the cardinal snatched a microphone out of its holder and moved it
away from a pro-lifer who had just asked him why he supports pro-abortion
politicians; in yanking the microphone, the cardinal accidentally bloodied
the pro-lifer's lip.
The episode took place in front of nearly 1,000 people, gathered at Los
Angeles' Omni Shoreham Hotel for the Third Annual Memorial Commitment to
Life Conference.
Former Ambassador Alan Keyes had just finished delivering his keynote
address, in which he called abortion the most important issue facing the
nation, and the reason for so much teen violence, murder, and crime. Then,
local pro-lifer Dennis Rudmin approached Licia Nicassio, director of the
archdiocese's Respect Life Office, and said he had a question for Cardinal
Mahony, still sitting on the stage.
He began reading some questions printed on a slinger prepared by the
Concerned Roman Catholics of Los Angeles concerning Mahony's support for
various pro-abortion politicians, and Nicassio motioned to the young man to
approach the cardinal - who was still sitting on stage.
He asked Mahony why his Spanish-language newspaper, Vida Nueva, had given
favorable publicity to Cong. Loretta Sanchez, after she had twice voted to
prevent a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, and why he had refused to
testify on behalf of a proposed state ban on partial-birth abortion when
invited to do so at hearings in Sacramento last year.
According to an eyewitness who watched the rapidly unfolding incident from
the front row, Cardinal Mahony then approached this young man, who was
leaning into the microphone as he spoke, and yanked the microphone out of
its holder with such force that it hammered the young man in the mouth,
causing him to start bleeding immediately.
"Excuse me," said the cardinal.
"What did you do that for?," the puzzled Rudmin asked Mahony.
"You're not on the list as a speaker," Mahony answered.
The young man then turned to another microphone, and the cardinal grabbed
that one, too, all the while admonishing the young man for his criticism.
As the young man continued reading from the slinger, the cardinal finally
walked away.
"With all the struggling on stage," the front-row eyewitness told The
Wanderer, "the cardinal brought a lot of attention on himself. After
Keyes' speech, people were getting up and starting to move on to their
various workshops. But once the action started, everyone wanted to stay
and see the cardinal's tussle.
"Even after the cardinal walked away, several hundred people stayed to
listen to Rudmin's questions."
Among the 16 reminders of Mahony's ambivalence toward the pro-life cause
read out by Rudmin were these: The infamous Catholic funeral and burial in
a Catholic cemetery of Dr. James McMahon, developer of a technique for
partial-birth infanticide; the cardinal's association with pro-abortion
city, state, and federal legislators who call themselves "Catholic," such
as Leon Panetta, Loretta Sanchez, and L.A. Mayor Richard Riordan; and the
use of his archdiocesan newspaper to support pro-abortion politicians.
One example of the last point was the misleading front-page picture and
caption, "Defending the Family," in an article about the work done by
former Cong. Eddie Roybal, who had a 100% proabortion voting record.
This story was about his promotion of welfare programs.
- A Peculiar Event -
There were a number of other peculiar events at Cardinal Mahony's
Commitment to Life Conference.
Catholics walking into the Exhibit Hall, perhaps expecting that the annual
event would be devoted to remembering the 35 million-plus victims of legal
abortion, were stunned to see that the first two exhibit tables were
displays from The Detention Ministry, which promotes opposition to capital
punishment, and Lesbian and Gay Ministry, which misrepresents the Catholic
Church's teaching on homosexuality.
Staffing the Lesbian and Gay Ministry exhibit was Marge Mayers, assistant
to director Fr. Peter Liuzzi, O. Carm., who runs the diocese's outreach
programs to homosexuals and lesbians. When Mayers recognized Rosemarie, a
Lutheran, who was shocked to see the display, Mayers offered, "Are you
surprised to see us here?"
Rosemarie recovered enough to answer, "Yes. You know, the Bible says
homosexuality is wrong."
"Well, the Bible is not always right, " Marge snapped back in rebuttal.
One of the workshops at the cardinal's pro-life event included "Public
Discipleship: Building a Kingdom of God Among Us," hosted by a panel that
included Effie Clark, treasurer/cochair of the Industrial Areas Foundation,
which played such an important role in defeating pro-life Cong. Bob Dornan
and replacing him with the militant pro-abort Cong. Sanchez; Fernando
Moreno, a member of the Campaign for Human Development National Advisory
Committee; and Pamela Rector, who is active in citizenship fairs and voter
registration drives.
Another was "Raising Moral Children in a Sometimes Immoral World,"
presented by Anne Hanson, education coordinator from St. Anne's Maternity,
and Priscilla Hurley, who designs sex Ed and family planning programs.
Parents were told by the team not to allow their children to use
uncharitable words that would sound judgmental when referring to
homosexuals.
The pre-eminence of homosexual agitprop at the conference is forcing some
of southern California's "old-guard" pro-lifers to question Cardinal
Mahony's support for the cause.
His Respect Life Office is under the umbrella of the Campaign for Human
Development, lumped in with other organizations in his Archdiocesan
Ministries in Support of Life, which includes Catholic Charities, Detention
Ministry, Lesbian and Gay Ministry, the Office of Health Affairs, the
Office of Family Life, and the Office of Ministry to Persons With
Disabilities.
All of these organizations function under the direction of the Secretariat
of Community Services, headed by Thomas Chabolla, director of the CHD,
director of Catholic Relief Services, and executive director of Justice and
Peace.
The conference ended with an Ecumenical Prayer Service, with liturgical
dancers provided by the Catholic Church.
Ministers from four Protestant churches provided reflections on; life and
abortion. None of the readings or reflections were offered by the only
Catholic priest there.
At the conclusion and final prayer, offered by the priest, there was no
mention of abortion, but simply the canned exhortation to pro-lifers not to
become obsessed with a "single issue."
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Please respond to all publicly posted messages publicly ... (SPAM protector: For email, write to w...@pobox.com)
Mike Davidchik
In article <34ef2533...@news2.ibm.net>, w...@pobox.com wrote:
snip
It is not suprising to me that the Los Angeles Archdiocese reflects the
"flakiness" of the people who live in this area. This the "land of the
fruits and nuts" for everybody, not just Catholics. The big money in L.A.
supports "pruniness."
It is too obvious that Mahony is a P.C. liberal Democrat and this hurts
the Church because Archbishops should not show political partisanship.
Several California bishops have shown weakness on the anti-abortion and
anti-feminism in the Church issues because they don't want to offend
certain militant minorities.
They are trying to be "politicians in Roman collars" rather than being moral
leaders or teachers.
Mike Davidchik
JONATHAN E. NAVAL
For more TRUTHS and opinions on His Excellency, try this site:
Mark Johnson
JONATHAN E. NAVAL <LAn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>For more TRUTHS and opinions on His Excellency, try this site:
>
>www.thinline.com/~ccoulomb/mahony/mahony.html
I think rather than just collect anecdotes, if you want to make the
case for sanction or excommunication against the Cardinal, that it be
phrased in just such a manner, based on contradiction of The
Magisterium and Canon Law. Just a suggestion. I wouldn't be surprized
that some in the Vatican have a head start on you.
Peace.