FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Running a Tighter Ship?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Extensive reports have been circulating in Toowoomba, Australia on last week's removal of Bishop William Morris as head of that diocese. Several friends down under have forwarded them to CatholicCulture.org for review. See our special Catholic World News feature, Vatican worked for years to remove Australian bishop:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=10273

More evidence of the Vatican's increasing militancy regarding wayward bishops can be found in Phil Lawler's latest On the News commentary, The surprising outcome of Bishop Lahey's trial. It really does seem that Pope Benedict is now determined to run a tighter barque of Peter:


http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=10273

[size=10pt]
3 cheers for pope Benedict XVI Cheers! Cheers! Cheers!

Wonder who will be the first to go in the U.S.Huh?, now that the builder of the "Raj-Mahal" has retired.
(05-10-2011, 07:53 PM)JoniCath Wrote: [ -> ]now that the builder of the "Raj-Mahal" has retired.

I thought the proper name was "Taj-Mahoney" Sticking tongue out at you

I only knew that Bp. Morris called for the ordination of women into the priesthood and for the recognition of Protestant orders. But this stuff about encouraging the practice of general absolution and of scheduling First Communion before first Confession (!) is pretty bad stuff, too.

There were two one other bishops removed from office this year. I think this is huge.
The job of Peter's successor is to govern the Church.

So is this an accurate one-line summary?--

Paul VI didn't govern, John Paul I didn't live long enough to govern, John Paul II didn't govern, Benedict the XVI is starting to govern, little by little.
I think it only means that bishops who publicly challenge church teaching and then obstinately refuse to mend their ways will be dealt with. JPII did that also. I don't think it means anything for bishops who may be allowing all sorts of stuff to go on under their noses so long as they don't publicly challenge church teaching.

C.
(05-10-2011, 10:07 PM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]I think it only means that bishops who publicly challenge church teaching and then obstinately refuse to mend their ways will be dealt with. JPII did that also. I don't think it means anything for bishops who may be allowing all sorts of stuff to go on under their noses so long as they don't publicly challenge church teaching.

C.

Sadly, This.
(05-10-2011, 10:44 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2011, 10:07 PM)Cetil Wrote: [ -> ]I think it only means that bishops who publicly challenge church teaching and then obstinately refuse to mend their ways will be dealt with. JPII did that also. I don't think it means anything for bishops who may be allowing all sorts of stuff to go on under their noses so long as they don't publicly challenge church teaching.

C.

Sadly, This.

I would love to be proved wrong, and there are examples of bishops having to reverse course after Rome intervened quietly over this or that. The EWTN has a full chronology of the Toowoomba affair. Bishop Morris was asked to resign in 2007 and resisted for four years before he was removed. I think they should move more quickly than that. IMHO.

C.