AmericanPapist Comments
Diogenes nailed it with this one, though technically, H's assertion does not amount to "apostasy" so much as "heresy". But we know what D meant. :)
ps: since when does the word "caustic" need a rehabilitative "but not untruthful" appended to it? Caustic is most effective when it's truthful, and D is very truthful.
ND Subway Alumni, the following is a criticism. Hold your brickbats to the end. Here goes- Father Ted is the perfect symbol for Post- WW II American Catholicism. Yes, he significantly upgraded the university's academic features. At the same time, he accomodated dissidents like McBrien on the theology faculty. Yes, he could be seen participating in All The Right Causes as ND prez. Many of those causes look rather weak and/or destrictive. Now he sounds off about the possible glories of wymynpriests. With no repercussions- he's Father Ted, after all. Brickbats may begin.
Someone needs to look into basic logic. You can't say, "I have no problem with females or married people as priests...", and then say, "But what's important is that people get the sacraments."
If the Church ordains female priests it would be denying people the sacraments because any attempt at confecting the Eucharist by them would be invalid.
Nothing afflicts the Heart of Jesus so much as to see all his sufferings of no avail to so many...Pray then for the conversion of sinners.---The Zeal of the Cure' of Ars.
Father Hesburgh is 90 years old and isn't as sharp as he used to be. I always thought he was a conservative masquerading as a liberal because liberals are what the press likes. And believe me, Father Hesburgh knows how to play the press. Tom
good point brian.
tjm, we might as well say that TH was a liberal masquarading as a conservative masquarading as a liberal.
Ed, I know the guy, he's not that liberal. I think he says what he thinks people want to hear. Tom
"I think he says what he thinks people want to hear."
Ok. Fine. Then what use is he?
Ed, he's a fundraiser. That's what his greatest talent has been over the decades. Notre Dame had a run down elegance when he took over in 1952. He changed that and also raised the University's profile considerably. Although McBrien was a mistake,he also was responsible for bringing in some very orthodox Catholic scholars. I have seen him celebrate Mass on countless occasions. He takes his priesthood seriously - he does the red and says the black. Even when he ran the University full-time, when he was on campus he was available to students for counseling. I agree his remarks were intemperate but he's 90. Tom
Does our conduct correspond with our Faith? One sin can not excuse another sin. Our Lord is never found in Pomp, Pleasure, Luxury, but in lowliness and humiliation.
I cut 90 year olds some slack. Pietas, and all that. TH's record from the 60s, 70s, and 80s is what he will answer for, someday.
Although disheartening to read Father's statement, there is a bigger story at ND than the comments of a 90 year old priest.
My child is a student there and we just returned home from a visit. We met many students who are working hard to keep ND's Catholic identity truly Catholic.
From the 40 Days for Life Campaign at the South Bend abortion clinic (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?
number=91157) to the TLM celebrated every Sunday and much more in between there is a wonderful spirit at ND.
When you pray for Bishop D'Arcy, Fr. Jenkins and Fr. Hesburgh, pray as well for the students and the faculty members who are supporting their efforts to keep the faith.
Ed, I was around ND in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and compared to some of the loons I've seen in the clergy (think Father Greeley), Ted Hesburgh is pretty orthodox, far more orthodox than some of the American hierarchy hanging around today. And I am a very, conservative Catholic, but a fair-minded one. Hesburgh is not a phillistine or apologetic with regards to the Catholic Faith. I think one example sums it up. When some nut, like a Father Vosko and all of the other spirit of Vatican II types were running around after the Council wreaking destruction, wanted to rip the magnificent High Altar out of the Basilica, Hesburgh intervened and said no, absolutely nut. I'd like you to cite what Father Hesburgh has said that is so radical or unorthodox. He's not McBrien. Tom
Look, Tom, you seem like a nice guy, (though why you think "conservative" needs to be qualified by "but not unfair minded" eludes me); anyway, everyone knows that TH is not McBrien (ntw that TH allowed McB his position), but what get's me, over the years, is how 'most every defense of TH boils down to "he's not as bad as some others", a truism if there ever was one. I'm glad you like TH (really). Let's just say I think extraordinary influence should be used for good, and not simply as post from which not to be as bad as some others, and move to a slew of topics with a future, and not just one with a past. Kind regrds, edp.
Ed, thank you for your kind response. I am not always happy with Father Hesburgh's decisions (most importantly his decision to admit women into the undergraduate program when St. Mary's was just across the road) but I think if I were to assess his Church views on a spectrum , I would view him as a moderate in today's Church. He's certainly not a conservative or traditionalist when you compare him to an Institute of Christ the King priest, but neither is he a Call to Action type of Catholic priest either. I know he
I believe his views falls in the middle like a lot of American Catholics. Many Catholics whom I know who are very faithful Catholics and could hardly be termed liberal or progressives would not find shocking at all the notion of a married clergy (particularly since that was prevalent in Roman Catholicism in its early history) and some of them who are not as doctrinally aware as you or me, don't see a lot wrong with women priests either. His conclusion that the most important thing is that people get the sacraments rings with common sense to many faithful Catholics. What I find perplexing is that if the pre-Vatican II seminary training was so orthodox why then did we end up with so many priests who reject what we consider essential to the Faith?
All the best, Tom
His conclusion that the most important thing is that people get the sacraments rings with common sense to many faithful Catholics.
Which means only that - thanks to appallingly bad catechesis over the last two generations, many do not understand what sacraments are. Women cannot constitute the proper matter for the priesthood, ergo any sacraments they try to provide would be invalid - not sacraments at all. On this matter, the question is closed, it is part of the deposit of faith - Roma locuta est, finita causa.
What I find perplexing is that if the pre-Vatican II seminary training was so orthodox why then did we end up with so many priests who reject what we consider essential to the Faith?
A good question - alas.
Commenting by HaloScan
