It appears, based on very reliable sources, that indeed Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco is going to be appointed the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
This is not good news. Archbishop Levada is the prelate who compromised with the city of San Francisco over the city’s demands that Catholic Charities and other Church organizations provide “domestic partner” benefits to employees. His archdiocese is also a mess with dissenting priests, homosexual activists running all over the place, the University of San Francisco trampling the faith, and more.
I’m really very surprised by this. I would have thought that Pope Benedict would have seen this for what it was, especially considering his close association with Father Fessio, who had been in San Francisco for many years.
Maybe he sees something we don’t. I hope.
….could it be the Corleone-esque admonition, “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”?
If he is trying to keep his enemies closer, I could think of a less damaging way to do it. Put him into the Archives or something, not the CDF.
I find this discouraging.
Levada worked for some time at CDF under Ratzinger. Pope Benedict knows him very well, and if he appoints him then we must assume he has cause to trust him. San Francisco’s troubles started long before Levada became Archbishop.
Let’s all e-mail him and complain, then see what happens.
Probably not much.
But I will say this- I trust Pope Benedict, so if that is what happens, I’ll accept that he knows better than I do.
“provide place, the University of San Francisco trampling the faith..”
Sounds like he is Nixon for China.
I too trust Pope Benedict on this…
Maybe the next to rise to power will be Mahoney. Not much difference between him and Levada. Let the apologists now begin their spin.
Well, at least now BXVI can appoint someone to clean up the SF mess.
It could be that Benedict knows that Levada is rather weak and will thus be content to act as a front man as the pope keeps real control over the CDF. Kinda like painting a smiley face on a tank.
>>Put him into the Archives or something, not the CDF.
And Mahony into the Catacombs.
You gotta figure BXVI knows what he’s doing—he knows CDF & he knows Levada—but you would expect his reasoning to be more apparent to the rest of us.
I would not want to sully the Catacombs with Mahony’s presence.
Guess we just need to wait and see what happens with Levada. There is a danger (I plead guilty) to judge too quickly. Still…seems like a strange appointment.
Perhaps Levada is a man with a good mind but little willpower. Perhaps B16 believes he rats and their iron agendas.
BTW, I have little proof of this but my heart tells me that my Abp, Mahony, may be in the middle of a real conversion. That is how I see his lunch with Ratzinger; it may well have been a confession. I know there have been a lot of prayer requests around here today, but please prey for him. This could herald a real and beautiful change in the Church in this country.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
John – I’ll pray for Mahony, and maybe Benedict will prey upon him.
Richard,
Me too, but I still hope to see it.
John,
Mahony converting from Unitarianism to what? Hinduism?
Maybe Father Fessio will be the next Archbishop of San Francisco.
Sorry, I should have read the previous comments. John Hearns, I agree with you. I think I see something different about Cardinal Mahoney.
Yeah, Fr. Fessio is too nice. San Francisco needs someone like Fr. Corapi as their Archbishop.
Carrie, a very astute observation!
Let me suggest a new name for the CDF: the Congregation for the Advancement of Ecumenism.
Freedom: Ecumenism will be the main thrust of Benedict’s papal activities, so I guess that’s what we’ll get from the CDF.
Where is all this coming from? It’s quite a leap to say that Pope Benedict is a supporter of the one-world religion loonies. Read what he’s actually written on the subject, especially his latest book, “Truth and Tolerance,” and then get back to me on this.
Ecumenism is not a dirty word, especially if means faithfulness to Christ’s prayer that we would all be one. Pope Benedict is not one to compromise the truths of the faith to appease non-Catholics, and he never has been.
Father Fessio says Pope Benedict XVI will preserve integrity of faith
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0502642.htm
Mortalium Animos
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.
We cannot worship in communion, but we can pray together.
Dom,
I never said Fr. Fessio would be happy about being named Bishop of S.F., but it would be great for the Church, nonetheless. I’ve noticed over the years that if one mentions to a good, faithful priest that they would make a good bishop, they all seem to reply along the lines of, “Why would you want to do that to me.” However, these are exactly the kinds of priests we need to be elevated to be bishops, and not leave it to wishy-washy at best, heterodox at worst, candidates for the office of bishop.
Of course, it would be ok by me if the Holy Father wanted to skip naming Fr. Fessio Archbishop of S.F., and just give him the red hat and name him as prefect for the CDF!
Dom, you ask where all this is coming from (Pope Benedict’s ecumenical agenda). Even before he became pope, did he not participate in the blasphemous inter-pagan gathering at Assisi on January 24, 2002? After this event, the statement he made according to the 2/21/02 issue of zenit.org said it all. He described the train that took the religious leaders from the Vatican to Assisi as “a symbol of our pilgrimage in history.” As if that were not enough, he added, “Are we not all, perhaps, passengers on the same train? Is not the fact that the train chose as its destiny peace and justice, and the reconciliation of peoples and religions, a great inspiration and, at the same time, a splendid sign of hope?”
What nonsense is this? Are we to conclude that a gathering of pagans praying to their false gods (even voodoo witchdoctors) can in any way be pleasing to our one true God? Not only that, but such activity is clearly forbidden in the Bible (2 Corinthians 6:14-16; 1 Corinthians 10:20; 2 John 1:9-11).
In one of his first speeches, Pope Benedict made it clear that his “primary task” would be to work to reunify all Christians, and that he wanted to continue “an open and sincere dialogue” with other religions. He also said he would do everything in his power to improve the ecumenical cause. You can read the article here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7567786/ I find these statements rather disturbing because by making his “primary task” the reunification of all Christians rather than the salvation of souls and the appointments of holy bishops, he conveys the message that the former is more important. So in answer to your question, it is coming from Pope Benedict’s own lips.
I haven’t read his latest book, “Truth and Tolerance”, but I am aware that in a number of his speeches, he has spoken out against such things as the dictatorship of relativism, false idols, and the dangers of paganism. However, his actions speak louder than mere words can; as evidenced by his participation in the Assisi event and now his appointment of a great promoter of the United Religions Initiative, to of all positions, The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith!
Archbishop Levada even made an ecumenical pilgrimage in 2002 with Episcopal Bishop William Swing who founded the United Religions Initiative. Here is the reference http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1024901/posts
p>I want to conclude by stating what is obvious to me: Can a man such as Bishop Levada help to build up the Body of Christ or only serve to tear it down?
Ecumenism and interreligious dialogue are the salvation of souls, unless one has a faulty definition of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.
Having actually read Pope Benedict’s writings on the subject, as opposed to cherry-picking a single phrase from a single statement, I know that he doesn’t have a faulty definition.
You admit you haven’t read his book. Do it before commenting any further on the subject.
In Benedict’s favor, he did refuse to partake in the first Assisi event.
I’m reading the book, Dom. If he appoints Levada, he has by his actions dismissed what he says in the book. If he appoints Levada his actions do not match his words.
No. You have assumed a lot, making connections from one thing to another and to another. They just don’t connect unless you’re pre-disposed to seeing them there. The mere appointment of a single person to a single post doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme you have constructed. I think you need to step back and take a breath.