The Pope is undergoing surgery

The Pope is undergoing surgery

We’re hearing that he is undergoing a tracheotomy. Things are getting more serious. This is a bigger issue than his previous hospitalization. How many times do people relapse from the flu after they are released from the hospital? Stay tuned.

Update: He is out of surgery. He was able to give his consent to the surgery. The Vatican says his post-operative condition is “regular.” I don’t think he is going to die today, but he is not going to live forever. Keep him in your prayers. This is going to a very difficult Lent for the Holy Father.

Update 2: They’re talking now on Fox News with Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., of America about what to do about a pope who’s so incapacitated that he can’t communicate, even to resign. What’s to discuss? You do nothing. The Church is not the United States. The Pope doesn’t have give authorization to launch the nukes. If he’s incapacitated, it’s not like he’s going to live forever in that state. Appointments of new bishops would halt, new canonizations as well, and most new documents would be held up. But that’s it. The Church would continue her business: Masses would be said, sacraments administered, people evangelized.

I don’t understand this fetish with age limits and papal resignations. Nevermind the fact that no canonical legislation is binding on any pope without his consent. By definition he is the supreme legislator and if he disagrees with a law, it’s gone. It’s a lot of silly talk, sometimes by people who just want this pope to go away.

  • The Church is not the United States. The Pope doesn_content>Actually Fox managed to get some decent priests on. One of them came down on the side of “Of course, he won’t resign.”

  • “I donriestly silencing from Altoona-Johnstown, Pa., Bishop Joseph Adamec. Bishop Adamec’s diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Register, ran a front-page photo of the two bishops on May 5, 2003, and informed readers that Bishop Loverde had been invited to speak in the diocese.
      On Sept. 9, 1999, Bishop Adamec forbade a local priest, the Rev. Philip Saylor, from talking about the diocese’s track record on sexual-abuse cases. Father Saylor was given a canonical “precept of silence,” the same as was given to Father Haley, and threatened with excommunication if he disobeyed.
      The bishop posted the order on his Web site, [url=],[/url] and wrote a March 17, 2003, letter to the Wall Street Journal defending his decision. The bishop was under some pressure, because the Tribune-Democrat in Johnstown had published in June 2002 an investigation saying the diocese had allowed at least 10 pedophile priests to continue working while abusing hundreds of boys.

  • Is not all light and roses on the way up to Calvary, DocPoly.  Fr. Haley took the correct road even though he found it fraught with suffering; Fr. Nesbella should’ve done the same knowing the same.  Fr. Nesbella could’ve made his complain at the Archdiocese Tribunal in Philadephia.  He should’ve given the Church’s process a chance to work.

    Fr. Nesbella has chosen—or is about to choose—another road, also fraught with suffering, but also with deep contradictions.  Because of these contradictions, the spiritual fruits of this quest may be compromised, or rendered non-existent.

    A Catholic Diocese is not “the Roman Catholic Church, Inc.” in that place, nor its Bishop the chief employer and CEO.  Rather, it is the Catholic Church’s full presence in a place, in its local expression and as such, it’s also an object of faith; its Bishop is not a boss, it’s a Father.  We don’t choose our fathers, no matter how debauch, shameless, or clueless they may be.  God gives them to us and we must love them as they are.

    I can’t begin to fathom the spiritual consequences of a priest taking his bishop and diocese to a secular court.  There’s a scandal here, and a scandal will not cure the other scandals; the end does not justify the means.  This might be an American solution to the problem, but definitely, not a Catholic solution.

    Every day that goes by I become more and more skeptical of this potential civil lawsuit.  Still, I want to give Fr. Nesbella a fair hearing and an opportunity to publicize his viewpoint.


  • “Fr. Haley took the correct road … Fr. Nesbella shouldparish assignment. There was a knock on the back door. A man asked for Haleycomment_id>24298
    2005-02-24 14:29:08
    2005-02-24 18:29:08>2005-02-25 21:26:01 The church is an easy target right now.  It’s sad that people will believe just about anything about Catholic teaching, except the truth.  For the life of me, I can’t understand people who claim to be Catholics but refuse to follow the Church’s teachings.

    We’re all praying for the Pope’s health, as we should.  But, if nothing he says means anything anymore, then he’s just a nice old man with a sore throat.

    If we accept the fact that he’s descended directly from St. Peter, that he’s the head of Jesus’ church (you know, the one that the gates of hell won’t prevail against), then we have to do what he says.  The Church is not a democracy.  We call Jesus Christ the King because we’re part of his kingdom.  We’re subject to Him and His teachings.

    We don’t get to vote. 

    I’m not familiar with the liberal deacon you mention, but if he’s attacking my Archbishop, then he and I would have a problem.

  • The parish corporation had bylaws that recognized the authority of the Archbishop. 

    Unfortunately the bylaws contained ambiguity which allowed their amendment in the 1970’s to write the authority of the Archbishop out of the bylaws.  So talking about this a being settled matter for 100 years is not quite true.