AmericanPapist Comments
I'd say you're paranoid. Yes, there's a bias in the media, but you're reading way too much into a simple, and truthful statement.
Yeah, I agree - you are clearly paranoid and probably need extensive counseling. I am free this afternoon after 3 pm. Right now, I have to make a sweep of the rectory again and look for BBC reporters who are probably under all beds.
*whew* I'm glad it's just me. :)
Given the BBC's history of, shall we say, less-than-stellar coverage of Catholic news items, you can hardly be faulted when you BS antennae go *boing!*
I think you are overstating it. I can find ample quotes of conseratives Catholics claiming vocations are booming in "orthdox" dioceses in very flimsy evidence.
"Booming" is likely overstating it, but it is indisputable that orthodox American dioceses are doing much better on that score than the other American dioceses.
Mike --
I find that claim always fades when data and definition is asked for. Can you be the first to provide some? Not some antedotal examples but some consistent rules to measure by.
The orders that have remained traditional and orthodox don't seem to have a lack of vocations. The Missionaries of Charity, and the Poor Clares seem to be doing just fine. Their orthodoxy, and the fact that you can tell they're nuns just by looking at them, are probably just coincidences.
katherine,
A vew years ago the NOR reprinted a table resulting from a survey/study. The table ranked dioceses by success in vocations, with the name of each diocese being printed in a typeset that classified it as notable orthodox, notably liberal or neither. As I recall, the rankings were based on the number of seminarians plus new priests (two years or less?) divided by the number of Catholics in the diocese. The list was pretty compelling.
And it does comport with my experience. Atlanta, for instance, was turned around under the leadership of Archbishop Donoghue, and thankfully it appears that Archbishop Gregory is continuing those efforts. Our parish presents the Elijah Cup each week at Mass to a family that will keep it in their home as a reminder to pray for vocations. This emphasis on vocations is virtually absent in liberal dioceses.
Mike -
I guess what I am asking is for a definition or 'orthodox'. I'm not so interested in disproving your theory, just calming down the unfortunate quickness I have seen in throwing around the term 'orthodox' and 'unorthodox' towards those men the Holy Father has found worthy to shepard a portion of God's faithful.
Archbishop Gregory has permitted women to be included in the Holy Thursday foot washing and has not preached against pro-choice politicians receiving communion. Is he orthodox? Cardinal Sean in Boston also washed women's feet on Holy Thursday. The claims I’ve seen referened included many men in Newark who decided to pursue their vocation when McCarrick was there. And he certainly spoke frequently about vocations when he was in Washington. Cardinal George has two Masses for the gay community in Chicago (Bernardin only allowed one). He is orthodox? The Bishop of Arlington ended the practice of prohibited women as altar servers and has implemented a sex ed program objected to by many conservatives. Is he orthodox? The Memphis diocese has a high number of vocations but is seen as liberal by many and with a bishop who has been accused of an excessive "social justice" focus. Archbishop Harry Flynn is not someone conservatives have had much good to say about but vocations are strong in St. Paul, MN. And what of the high vocations under bishop Conlin and his testy relationship with FUS? What about Baltimore’s high number under its Archbishop noted for ecumenism and Catholic-Jewish initiatives? How is conservative Cardinal Egan doing with vocations?
"I'm not so interested in disproving your theory ...."
Well, sure you are, Katherine, get real.
I have no recollection as to how the study made its distinctions. I imagine that some amount of subjective judgment had to go into it. And I have no idea how Cardinal Egan is doing on vocations, and Lord knows I don't have the time to play your vocabulary game.
As far as footwashing goes, if it is OK with Rome, it is OK with me. I couldn't care less. Same with girl alter servers. But dozens of dioceses permitted girls to alter serve before Rome altered the rules to permit it. Same with standing rather than kneeling for Communion. Are you suggesting that these types of abuses are ok because the "Holy Father has found [those bishops] worthy to shepard a portion of God's faithful?
While I'm not eager to pronounce any bishops as not orthodox, I think it is pretty obvious to those of us who pay attention that some bishops embrace orthodoxy, while others tolerate it. So slice or dice the definitions any which way you wish, but I think that answer on vocations will still come out the same.
Well Mike, your first error is confusing unorthodoxy with disciplinary laxness. You can have a principled objection to both. But throwing around accusations of unorthodoxy when in fact one has a case of disciplinary laxness is a sin against charity and honesty.
Anyway, your comment that you have no recollection as to how the study made its distinctions resolves this discussion for me.
Katherine,
As is throwing around accusations of sins against charity and honesty.
Commenting by HaloScan
