Cardinal Pell victim of smear campaign?
#1
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damian...s-bishops/

Considering who got the nod instead (Ouellet), it would seem this is more than a conspiracy theory and quite likely-- seeing as Ouellet lets priests run roughshod over him, it would seem he's "their man" for those who prefer the status quo.
Reply
#2
Easy to judge from a distance, isn't it?

Honestly, Cardinal Pell gets the intellectual side of it all, but has never carried through in the pastoral side, beyond kicking a football with the parish youth or seeking out the most obvious young men to serve the priesthood . He let a lot of bad things happen, and still does as far as I know, but at least he gets the intellectual side of being a bishop, according to tradition etc. He almost gets the "traditional" side too much, in a bad way, as in: as long as a priest is serving his role in the traditional sense, it doesn't matter if he fiddled with some boys back then or wants too much earthly power now. He's literally medieval, and egotistic.

In my opnion. Smile
Reply
#3
(06-18-2010, 05:14 AM)Benno Wrote: Easy to judge from a distance, isn't it?

Honestly, Cardinal Pell gets the intellectual side of it all, but has never carried through in the pastoral side, beyond kicking a football with the parish youth or seeking out the most obvious young men to serve the priesthood . He let a lot of bad things happen, and still does as far as I know, but at least he gets the intellectual side of being a bishop, according to tradition etc. He almost gets the "traditional" side too much, in a bad way, as in: as long as a priest is serving his role in the traditional sense, it doesn't matter if he fiddled with some boys back then or wants too much earthly power now. He's literally medieval, and egotistic.

In my opnion. Smile
  - bolded by me

That's an exaggeration don't you think ? Or do you base it on something concrete?

More generally, I'd say the issue of not always being practically active against modernism reaches just about all bishops in some ways. Got to wonder, even the ''orthodox'' bishops, what control do they really have in the first place over their dioceses? Could be a case of ''occasionally'' taking a big stand, so such incidents have impacts, whereas if constantly trying to excommunicate heretics, all his actions would then be ignored. A case of picking one's battles and winning, rather than confronting all battles and lose ground . Just trying to make sense of it, I'm not saying he's (or any bishop for that matter) perfect. 
Reply
#4
Yeah, I agree, but he's been a prick, frankly. No I don't think he did anything that you bolded, but I think he tolerated (to say the least) a lot of young or old men who did or wanted to do a very bad thing, and that's a disgrace. "Traditionally" though, there were always young and old men who fiddled, so he didn't do anything bad in the parish of Melbourne by allowing so-inclined young men to enter the priesthood, or old men who wished to,
did he?

In short, he's intellectually grand, pastorally a self-satisfied pied-piper trying his best to be pure. My opinion. 
Reply
#5
Benno,

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you thought he himself did something. I was speaking of what you believe he ''tolerated''. 

Reply
#6
I think (and know) he tolerated a whole lot of stuff. Bluurgh.
Reply
#7
This discussion is the proof that the democracy, or any system where people of the streets make decision  is wrong, and the monarchy what is in the Church works. Cardinal Pell probably made mistakes and was relocated, the Church goes on, the Cardinal still keeps a decent position.

In the non hierarchical system a second last governor of Illinois was imprisoned, the last one is indicted and probably will be set to prison too. Or meditate on the scandal in Saint Gertrude the Great last fall. Under a jurisdictional system the bishop or his priest would be relocated and the church will go on instead of an internal 'schism'

Reply
#8
Yeah yeah...

But the Church isn't a monarchy or democracy.
 
Reply
#9
(06-18-2010, 08:15 AM)Benno Wrote: Yeah yeah...

But the Church isn't a monarchy or democracy.
 

The official name is theocracy, but the closest analogy is the monarchy: The Church is the mystical body of Jesus Christ, were Christ is the head, and governs through his vicar the pope.

with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of one person, that is a monarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid arguments.-
DS 2147a


Reply
#10
I would have preferred Archbishop Burke transferred to head the Congregation for Bishops
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)