Bp. O Malley is a solid Bishop, many thought he was going to replace Cdl. Law when the scandals first broke in late 2001, and Law was going to be replaced quickly and many expected the Cardinal was going to be gone rapidly. As things turned out, the Cardinal stayed on for almost a year and Bp. O Malley was sent to Palm Beach, and almost no one expected him to be appointed to Boston, because he was newly appointed to the Palm Beach diocese.
From all what I read, he is just what Boston needs, he is solidly orthdox, but I feel for the people of Palm Beach, who now have to get a new bishop, if this report is true that is.
Law was "solidly orthodox". Is this guy orthoprax? Will he act? That's my question.
He's a good man. He was first elevated to the episcopacy in Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Virgin Islands has a connection to D.C. and that was his first assignment. I believe that prior to his appointment in Palm Beach, he was bishop in Fall River, MA. It was scandal-ridden before he got there and he did a fairly good job cleaning it up.
Bishop O'Malley was at one time the head of the Hispanic ministry in Washington, D.C. and did a very good job then (I was in D.C. for college then - early 80s). He then went on to be bishop of the U.S. Virgin Islands, before being assigned to Fall River.
My impression is he is true to the Franciscan vocation, and is a very pastoral cleric, who celebrates the liturgy with reverence. My first reaction on reading the news was "Praise God". Bishop O'Malley will be welcome here in Boston.
Mark,
I seem to recall some discussion, including input from Rod Dreher, right here on your site when Bishop O'Malley transferred from Fall River (my diocese) to Florida. You don't have a search engine, so I can't dig it up (and the comments have long disappeared, anyhow).
Some see him as sort of the scandal-clean-up guy. Most of his activity was before my time (both in the area and in the faith), but judging from what others have told me (priests and other involved and traditional Catholics), he'll do a great job.
From what little I read about him and his sermons I have read online(forgot the URL but it was a great sermon on secularism), I have a feeling that he is not what VOTF or CTA is looking for in a new Archbishop.
Totally not what VOTF or CTA are looking for. Boo hoo. Why weren't they consulted? Whither the American Church??? Doesn't the Pope realize consultation is what is needed to restore confidence in the Church for the American laity???
However, if I remember correctly as well, exactly what Boston needs. As orthodox as Law but not tied into the Old Boys Club and with the spine Law lacked.
Careful, Mark. It's still a rumor. It's a good rumor, but still just a rumor. We'll know tomorrow or Wednesday probably.
Well, we know that there haven't been any press reports stating that O'Malley is denying the reports....and you know they must be down there stalking his place right now.
Mark: "Is this guy orthoprax? Will he act? That's my question."
Gee, that's the same question most people have been asking of the Pope. Of course, the standard answer is that he wants the American bishops to clean up their own mess and carry their cross.
Sorry, Mark, you asked for it.
I've met O'Malley, back when he was in the VI. Good guy. And it would seem from Fall River and Palm Beach that he is indeed orthoprax.
I'm real tempted, though, to lay odds that nothing will come of this story. Kind of like the many stories we hear of "papables" before a Conclave. Nothing comes of it. John Allen is a good reporter and kudos to him if he got this scoop, but a part of me is holding back. We'll know tomorrow AM, as most assignments are announced on Tuesday.
Fr. Paul:
That's "he wants the American *Church* to clean up their own mess and carry their cross". Please do quote me correctly if you're going to ridicule my ideas.
But, of course, after last week's huge strides in anointing homosex a constitional right (penned by faithful lay Catholic Anthony Kennedy) I can certainly see why no reasonable person would think there's something massively deranged about the American Catholic Church (99.9999999999% of which is lay). Self-governing peoples are only responsible for the *good* things about their culture. The bad things are all due to a small clique of powerful interests and we laity are helpless pawns.
I'm a bit confused here. Mark has always said (and I tend to agree) that the Pope wants the American church to act to clean up its own mess and carry its cross. He now states that he hopes the new Bishop of Boston will indeed act to begin to clean up the mess there, and Fr. Paul seems to think he's caught an inconsistency. Is there some subtlety here escaping me this late in the day?
Mark, I wasn't ridiculing your ideas, I just don't agree with them and haven't seen you spell out before such a clear distinction between bishops and the "Church." Yes, I've heard two lines of argument: 1) the Pope refuses to act because he wants the bishops to clean up their own mess (and carry their cross), and 2) we get the bishops we want (because of our culture).
Now, to be honest, what sense would that make? It would be like, in the 4th century, speaking a lot and then letting the Arian bishops "clean up their own mess". And as St. Jerome said, it was the laity and their faith that saved the Church in that time.
I submit the same is true today. The people are faithful or at least want to be faithful if their pastors would challenge them. And a hierarchy that refuses to act (for other reasons than your thesis) is causing enormous damage.
E.g.: I preached this weekend on the Feingold/Pryor exchange, where she was indignant that he changed his vacation plans because of Disney's "Gay Days", not wanting to expose his girls to things that would frighten the horses.
Judging by the reaction, the people *loved* to hear it, looking up to heaven and saying "finally!"
Yes, there are plenty of problems among the laity. I preached on that as well: that it is impossible, statistically, to distinguish a pagan from a Catholic (e.g. abortion, divorce, adultery, etc.).
But I submit they'll respond with enthusiasm when their shepherds speak the truth and *act*.
Bob: the subtlety is that the Vatican refused to act until their back was against the wall. Law submitted his resignation and the Vatican refused. Same with O'Brien. And they didn't accept Weakland's until his $400k+ settlement was made public. I'm sure others could come up with more examples of bishops the Vatican kept on until their scandals became public.
There's a difference between damage control and risk management.
I'm not drawing a *distinction* between bishops and the Church. I'm including laity (we whose primary work is in the world as, among other things, the creators of culture) in the Church. The clergy are screwed up and have their oar to man. But we laity are also having to face the unpleasant consequences of our "Just leave us alone and let us do whatever we want with willie" approach to life we've taken. One consequence is that we have the clergy our heart's desire. We just don't like what that's meant.
Sorry, Mark, but your argument *has* evolved (go back and read your archives): it started with a response to the question as to why the Pope allowed these wolves to continue as shepherds (the "clean up their own mess" and "carry their cross" argument). Nice, pious theory, unsupported by the facts.
Later, you added the "we get the bishops we want" argument. True in the sense, as I say, that "priests aren't grown in cabbage patches."
And now you're claiming that the Pope is acting the way he is because he wants the entire American Church (clergy and lay) to carry its cross and learn from it.
Sorry, I just don't buy it, friend. It's like letting a wolf loose in the sheepfold and saying to the sheep, "I hope you learn something!"
I know you've said you don't agree with the Pope's supposed approach (as you characterize it). But it seems to me you're very reluctant to criticize it and are more interested in defending your thesis.
1. What's orthoprax?
2. Is there an antidote for clericalism?
I really must be late-
We go from:
"it was the laity and their faith that saved the Church in that time (the Arian crisis)"
to:
"I submit the same is true today. The people are faithful or at least want to be faithful if their pastors would challenge them."
to:
"it is impossible, statistically, to distinguish a pagan from a Catholic (today)".
It doesn't sound like its the faith of the laity that is going to ride to the rescue today. It sounds like it will take the American Church cleaning up its mess (i.e., repentance and clear teaching on the part of the clergy, and repentance and the willingness to listen as true disciples on the part of the laity).
"I can certainly see why no reasonable person would think there's something massively deranged about the American Catholic Church (99.9999999999% of which is lay). "
Hmm. Passion in posting is a relative good, but with this many nines, that means there are nine hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine Catholics in the US and one priest. We're not there yet. 
Fr. Paul: "But I submit they'll respond with enthusiasm when their shepherds speak the truth and *act*."
Well, perhaps it may depend on the make up or location of a parish because Amy has an article about a parish being split due to the firing of the gay choir director, living in a 10 year relationship with choir members' knowledge, and beginning inquiries to adopt a child. When the celebrant spoke about being obedient to Church teachings, including those on sexuality, some clapped and some walked out. They've even taken to interrupting the mass with their own song of protest and taking out an ad. My own parish has a very bright, energetic, punctual!, entertaining, full of stories mostly from his past, and a very quick mass,thus, a huge following. I see the sanctuary area as basically a stage for his entertaining homilies. But...he slips in, sometimes in the beginning rather subtly, and later pretty darn openly, his definite condemnation of how the church currently treats women, mentioning how (and what do these overeducated pew people know about the truth of the matter) obviously in the infant Church women made the bread, had the mass in their homes, so obviously they must have also consecrated too and this goes on and on into the other hot topics. You should hear how he casually removed the necessity of the priest for confession. A few have written to the bishop, complained to the pastor who has raised some objections, but the fellow is needed to fill in and since so many enjoy him, the bishop has said and done nothing. Ta Ta! Pretty much follows Mark's theory. They know in this case that this great number of parishioners will follow this priest right out to wherever he'd go if they made a move. No enthusiastic response to orthodoxy here.
Fr. Paul:
Of course my opinion has evolved over time. I just wish you'd noted it a bit earlier. However, it has not reversed itself.
I will let Bob Diorio and Chris speak to the "evidence" I have for my take on what JPII is up to.
Anonymous:
1. Orthopraxy = *practicing* the faith.
2. Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity.
Ed:
English major here. Can't be expected to know that stuff.
I'm with Fr. Paul on this one. It is very understandable to say, "big deal, Lawler was orthodox but I want to know what the new archbp will do." But, if that's your complaint against Lawler, then the same goes for John Paul II or, if you want to be vaguer, the Vatican. Why should the Holy Father be exempt from this criticism? Everyone knows him to be of exemplary understanding and piety. Yet, the wolves are not much hindered.
And, no, no, that doesn't mean the laity are exempt from responsibility. But, that argument is a red herring. There is plenty of responsibility for all Catholics. But, there is a certain kind of responsibility for those holding episcopal office and authority. Like, taking action to remove the wolves.
Mark, for every St. Joan's-like parish cited by Bob or Chris, I could cite you a Blessed Sacrament led by a Fr. Weinberger (who wasn't removed by the laity, but by his bishop, and not without protest from the laity). Neither case tells us the mind of the Pope.
Bob, actually, the laity will ride to the rescue, as it's only the laity (and media) that have forced the Vatican to act. I say again: Law would still be in Boston were it not for the laity. And if he had stayed, he would not have been cleaning up the mess and carrying his cross, but only doing damage control to keep the system going, hoping it would all blow over.
First the Massachusetts Bishops teach that marriage is only between men and women and now we get Bishop O'Malley back!
It's fun to watch the heads of the liberals spin while projecting green bile.
I guess we really do get the Bishops we deserve.
Christmas in June!!!!
"Mark, for every St. Joan's-like parish cited by Bob or Chris,"
Actually, Fr. Paul, our parish is NOT a St. Joan type parish. The pastor (who is pretty crippled up) is middle of the road conservative as is the other visiting priest...so the people actually have a choice - and the two masses by the dissident type are the ones that most flock to.
The other unknown at the moment is just how the people of Boston as well as the media and VOTF will take to their new bishop. Will they give him a chance or will nothing satisfy them? If they fight to limit the good he can do...well, yes, then they will get possibly a good bishop but with those limitations they place on him themselves and therefore will deserve what they get.
VOTF and CTA, and even the priest union can whine and moan all they want about any new Bishop, the fact is they are not getting any younger. the few children many of them have had are either agnostic, evangelicals or severely lasped Catholics, but their children will not be the future leaders of the church. If the laity does not accept the new Bishop, they can allways try a Episcopalin parish, though they may be disturbed because even though Epsicopalins may elect openly gay men to the level of Bishop, and even though they ordain women, they still have more reverenece in their liturgy, somthing the aging culture of dissent does not like.
Chris, in my experience, the people do not flock around pastors who "give them what they want." Instead, they flock around pastors who are simply kind. Thus our delimna, for some of the kindest pastors I know are far left of St. Joan's. They attract a following and thus the rancor when those mean, rigid bishops or pastors try to get them to follow Church teaching. OTOH, when a kind, yet orthodox priest comes in, the people respond just as well.
E.g. a friend of mind was just assigned as pastor of a parish whose previous pastor was removed for performing gay marriages(!). 80% of the people in that parish loved the guy because he was so "kind" - the parish continued to thrive and grow. So this new pastor, young, orthodox, but also kind... what kind of response does he get? Welcomed with open arms by all (and relief from the 20% who had been complaining for years about the previous pastor).
IOW, it really has nothing to do with orthodox vs. progressive, but more to do with the human virtues.
That'll be the good thing about Bp. O'Malley if he goes to Boston. He's not only kind, but orthodox (and seemingly orthoprax). Would that we had more like him: kind, faithful, and not afraid to act.
Any bishop in Boston will have to begin with Boston College... it's like the kiln where a lot of the dissident CTA and VOTF types (laity and clergy) were either educated or flock there now to find companionship in their disobedience. It's almost like the mother ship or something. It has a lot of satellites in the area, too (when my kids go to college, it won't be a Catholic one in Massachusetts as there aren't any).
I don't know how you'd bring BCs many dissident theologians to heel... the mandatum can't be enforced and had its teeth removed anyhow.
Anyway, God bless Bishop O'Malley! It will be a fine thing to have a humble and simple bishop at the helm! codicil: I think Bishop Lennon is humble and simple, but he's "just" the interim guy.
Well, Boston College has a following that supercedes Catholicism, that is, football. Institutions that sell out their founding purpose should properly close their doors.
It's a public disgrace to Christ.
Guess we'll find out how kindness and orthodoxy mix. From MSNBC report we have the pronouncement of the ONE who knows all things about everything in every place and whose authority is above all others:
"The Rev. Richard McBrien, a liberal theologian at the University of Notre Dame, said despite all the kudos O’Malley has won, he is still a conservative priest who would be “uncritically loyal to the Holy See and would not veer one millimeter from its policies and teachings on anything.”
And there is other carping from victims' groups and some victims in that article - noting personal dissatisfaction with previous encounters with O'Malley. Other sensible folks believe this appointment to be a blessing.
"The Rev. Richard McBrien, a liberal theologian at the University of Notre Dame, said despite all the kudos O’Malley has won, he is still a conservative priest who would be “uncritically loyal to the Holy See and would not veer one millimeter from its policies and teachings on anything.”
Gosh, he makes it sound like a bad thing.
McBrien also said that O'Malley is just like Cardinal Law... very conservative and if the VOTF or the Boston Priest's Forum (made up of the VOTF priests) thinks they'll find a friendly ear in O'Malley, they are wrong. (it's hard not to contain glee about that, I'm ashamed to say)
Although Cardinal Law was personally orthodox, he did not rock the boat at all and accepted the status quo. I pray that Bishop O'Malley realizes that something is seriously wrong in a diocese where only 26% of the Catholic population attends Mass weekly (and I think the numbers are the same pre scandal and post scandal). After everything settles down, he's got to look at the lousy catechism materials used here... and educate the children in true Catholicism instead of "Jesus loves you and please don't litter" claptrap so they don't end up a part of the 74% of Christmas Catholics. --- or they at least have a fighting chance of not ending up there.
For some heartening stuff on O'Malley from NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
th...hive.asp#010308
Sounds like the new archbishop cast a blank ballot (or wrote in), like I do increasingly....
Commenting by HaloScan
