Why Levada?

From the Word From Rome:

Sixth, Levada has a reputation as someone with the capacity to find imaginative solutions to difficult problems. A leading case in point came in 1997, when the City of San Francisco threatened to withdraw funding from any social service agency that did not provide health benefits to domestic partners. I was in Los Angeles at the time and was assigned to cover the story, and it seemed for a brief period that the city and the church were at a stalemate. At the eleventh hour, however, Levada proposed allowing employees to designate anyone they wanted as a recipient of benefits on their health plans -- an aunt, a parent, a good friend, etc. In that sense, the church was making benefits more widely available, without endorsing same-sex relationships. One Catholic theologian at the time called the decision "Solomonic," though some critics still felt it fudged over the church's opposition to homosexuality.

None of this is to suggest that Levada lacks critics. On the left, some recall Levada's efforts to "water down" a proposed pastoral letter of American bishops on women, or his role in opposing some forms of "inclusive language" in the translation of liturgical texts; conservatives sometimes complain that he has not cracked down on what they see as a center of "dissent" at the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco, or that he has not been a more energetic participant in the "culture wars," given San Francisco's profile as a center of pro-gay activism. Sex abuse victims sometimes argue that Levada has not been sufficiently transparent or cooperative in responding to the crisis.

It would be difficult to imagine, however, anyone who could step into the job at the CDF utterly without "baggage." What Levada does seem to bring is intellectual preparation and life experience well suited for the challenge of heading the doctrinal office, plus a pre-existing relationship with the pope. Given that, it's little surprise he's was the Pope's choice.

And Andrew Sullivan, fully informed on the situation, opines:

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "From the perspective of society, the tendency to 'privatize' the moral dimension, so common to America with its slogan 'separation of church and state,' can potentially have disastrous consequences." - Archbishop William J. Levada, just appointed to be pope Benedict XVI's guardian of orthodoxy. Even back in 1995, Levada was singling out one political party, the Democrats, for censure. And, for Levada, church-state separation is now merely a "slogan," not a fundamental principle of a free society? Another sign of where Benedict is going.

But then...other questions, re his handling of the abuse scandal

Comments

[Dale Price]

I suspect that if you pull up that "Open Letter to Maureen Dowd" of a couple weeks back, you'd be amazed by how little editing it would need before you could send it to Mr. Sullivan.

[hieronymus]

What interest me more than whether Levada is a "conservative" in the eyes of secular liberals (what man seriously considered for the post wouldn't be) are his stands on controversies within the currently accepted orthodoxy.

I know he hasn't applied Ecclesia Dei in his diocese, and I would like to hear a justification for that. It's not the sort of thing that makes me trust a bishop.

I'd like to know if he has in any way commented on, either positively or negatively, on the growing devotion to dubious private revelations among pious Catholics. Personally, I think the biggest challenge for the CDF in the years ahead will be quashing many of the popular unapproved "apparition" sites - it's probably inevitable (in my eyes, the most popular of them all is as obvious a fraud as I've ever seen), and the sooner it's done, the less messy it will be.

I'd like to know his relation to the new lay "movements" - which ones has he allowed to operate in his diocese, and how strongly has he shown them favor? Has he demanded transparency from them, or allowed them autonomy? Has he criticized some of the theologically weird features of, say Charismatic Renewal, or the Neocatechumenal Way?

What are his opinions of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari? The Coredemptrix title? The Ukrainian patriarchate? These are the sort of issues that can have a greater impact in the long term.

[Colleen]

>>>"Andrew Sullivan, fully informed on the situation, opines:..."<<<

LOL! Thanks for the giggle!

[Mark Shea]

My general rule of thumb is that anybody who fills both Andrew Sullivan with terror *and* causes the Chicken Little Brigade among Faithful Conservative Catholics to brandish their Long Knives against the mortal sins of Faith, Hope and Charity is probably a pretty good choice. Who would have imagined that Joseph Ratzinger might have a fair idea of what it takes to be prefect of the CDF? It's a world of wonders.

[Dave Mueller]

Oh, goody! Now the entertaining comments can begin! I see they have already started!

What are his opinions of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari? I can see I have some research to do! Only about 70% of that sentence had any meaning to me!

[Sydney Carton]

I don't know anything about this guy and am not involved in the gossip about his actions. But if he makes Andrew Sullivan mad, then I'm satisfied.

[Mark Shea]

Dave:

And we all thought you were a *real* Catholic. Clearly, we're going to have to keep our eye on you. Or don't you *believe* in salvation by Absolute Purity? Answer quickly or be excommunicated where you stand!

[al]

I'll hold back from commenting more on the Archbishop's decision making in that instance, because I don't know enough about it, but frankly I know for a fact that the Archibishop was offered the services of attorney's to fight that edict in court.

The need to fight that edict in court seems admirably demonstrated, dogmatically, by the Archbishop's predecessor and boss: "Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. . . .In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. . . .Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it."

[Dale Price]

The Anaphora are what pass for an institution narrative within the eucharistic portion of the liturgies of the Churches Formerly Known as Nestorian (a/k/a Assyrian).

During ecumenical dialogue with the Assyrians, the Church, albeit very reluctantly and not without continued legitimate concerns in many quarters) determined that the Assyrians had a valid Eucharist despite the complete lack of "this is my body/this is my blood" in their liturgy. The institution narrative has been considered absolutely indispensible for the valid form of the sacrament, and the hope is that the determination that it is not necessary for the Assyrians is sui generis.

[Celine]

It seems to me that the logic of the “Levada solution” to the San Francisco gay health benefits problem bodes well for a Catholic truce on the “gay marriage” front of the Culture War! No need for any more of this huffing and puffing over a "marriage amendment" and "imperial judiciary."

The Levada solution to the demand of San Francisco for the Church to provide health benefits to gay partners as a condition of receipt of city funds was to allow Church employees to designate anyone they wanted as a recipient of benefits on their health plans – an aunt, a parent, a “good friend,” etc.– thereby generously extending the benefits of health care to more people without affirming the legitimacy of gay relationships. So, as head of CDF and following the his San Francisco logic, he should rule in favor of supporting a law allowing a person to designate anyone a “life partner” – a member of the opposite sex, a parent, a “good friend” – thereby extending the financial and legal benefits of marriage to more people without affirming the right of gays to marry.

Is there a good Catholic legislator, as an apostle of peace in the Culture War, willing to sponsor such legislation?

[al]

And of course there is this: "13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily bad to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

14. The "sexual orientation" of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.

Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be "either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing" (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to "manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws" (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that "any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people ... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (cf. No. 9).

In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.

15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as "family" participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?

16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17)."

[Rod Dreher]

<---there, I turned off the itals. You can thank me later.

Meanwhile, don't neglect to read the Ron Russell story to which Amy links above, about how Levada handled sex abuse stuff in San Francisco. Of particular interest is his treatment of Father Conley, a whistleblowing priest who tried to get Levada and his crew to do the right thing about a Father Aylward, whom Father Conley had caught in flagrante with an altar boy. Instead, Fr. Conley got the usual runaround, and, disgusted, sent a message to Levada through Levada's attorney. As Fr. Conley remembers it:

"The message was to tell the archbishop to grow some balls and start acting like a man."

The pope should have named Father Conley to be head of the CDF.

[John Heavrin]

I trust Benedict, especially in regard to this very position.

I only hope Levada, if and when he's got to be stern with the American bishops, won't weaken when he gets the "C'mon, Bill, lighten up already..." from them.

As for the settlement of the same-sex situation, it does seem that he fudged on the Church's opposition to homosexuality. Yes, he expanded the pool of those who can get benefits, but same-sex couples are among those, and that amounts to an endorsement, or at least the lack of a condemnation.

I realize that it's harder to hew to the Church teaching when dealing with real people than in a classroom or a combox. But it's a little troubling.

Because now he's got to be the Rottweiler, or there won't be one. He's got to enforce the rules, not come up with "imaginative" ways around them. I hope he'll be succesful doing so.

I trust Benedict.

[Richard]

Hello Celine,

"Is there a good Catholic legislator, as an apostle of peace in the Culture War, willing to sponsor such legislation?"

Sorry to get all militant and everything, but I'm not interested in peace in the Culture Wars so much as victory.

I don't see thatthere's any room for compromise on this issue.

Hello Rod,

I think Conley could have held his temper a little better - he probably did himself no favors with the tape recorder - but I would endorse Fr. Conley for archbishop.

Naturally, he has no chance of getting the job.

But if someone better than Levada gets the job, mayeb this will work out well. Maybe Levada is better suited to a curial job.

[David Kubiak]

I think it is both nasty and theologically ignorant to excoriate hieronymous for his precise and well-taken questions. In case you haven't noticed the Prefect of the Holy Office is supposed to be the chief theologian of the Church, so wanting to know what the person who has the job thinks about important theological issues --and if people don't know the controversial history of the Addai and Mari anaphora question they are revealing the kind of ignorance that should forestall comment on the appointment -- would appear to me to be both intelligent and reasonable.

When the rabid ultramontane party begins its sneering attacks I am always reminded of the anti-intellectualism that did exist in places and was not among the more attractive parts of the "old" Church. "Pray, pay, and obey" would seem to be their attitude still. Luckily I was educated by nuns and priests who added "think" to the list.

The best construction I can put on this appointment is that the Pope doesn't need any help with theology, and there must be something about Levada's administrative and political skills that made him attractive. The Indult issue, however, remains a serious one, and people will not stop raising it until an unambiguous clarification is issued by the new Prefect.

[john hearn]

Re the Levada pick:

"By their fruits shall you know them."

As I have little facility for seeing into the future, I will have to wait to judge the wisdom of BXVI's choice of Levada to head the CDF. I think that at this point prayers are more helpful than comments.

[Jason]

I have a hard time getting worked up over this.

Rod's right. It's business as usual.

Popes have been appointing prefects for centuries.

Just let the man do his job.

[Dave Mueller]

Mark,
It may be "the Salvation of Ultimate Purity *and* Knowledge" given that I am apparently ignorant for not having heard about the anaphora issue before...SO ignorant that I should not be commenting on the appointment at all in fact.

Well, I'm going to comment anyway in my ignorance. From what little I know about Abp. Levada, I am not all that thrilled with his appointment. My first impression is that he is like so many other American bishops, personally orthodox, but perhaps lax in applying the standards. The Fr. Conway case, as reported by the media, isn't very reassuring.

However, I know so little about Abp. Levada, and I trust Pope Benedict XVI so much, that I am really not concerned. If Abp. Levada actually DOES something wrong, I'll worry about it then.

[Richard]

It's just possible that sometimes, the job makes the man.

Ratzinger's reputation was mainly built on his years at the CDF. Not many were calling hima rottweiler in Munich or Regensburg.

I note that Levada has served as Bishop Co-Chair of the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue in the United States (ARC-USA). Part of me wonders if that wasn't a big factor in why he was picked.

In the end, however, Ratzinger will be setting the tone and the theology. So I'm content to sit back and watch what happens at this point.

[Rod Dreher]

Ratzinger's reputation was mainly built on his years at the CDF. Not many were calling hima rottweiler in Munich or Regensburg.

A theologian friend, thoroughly orthodox, wrote to me yesterday and said he doesn't understand the "God's rottweiler" tag for Ratzinger, who was actually very mild in office.

[Liam]

And I guess I find it odd to wish for a revisiting of the issue of the Assyrian anaphora. I see no reason why it would be reversed by the current pope; even though the CDF was not the dicastery that issued the guidelines, there is no indication that the then Cardinal Ratzinger object to them, and it would have been quite strange if his input had not been sought on them.

[Justin]

Maybe no one here lives in the Bay Area, but this is not a good thing. Most Holy Redeemer paish in the city has been allowed the entire tenure of Archbp. Levada to have its annual float in the Gay Pride Parade with all of its usual antics. As a alum of USF, I can't even begin to tell you all of the things that go on there, but it's bad news. Take for example the Jesuit-run pagan prayer practices, like centering, yoga, and the labrynth (prominently in the main plaza of the University). Then take for example the antics at his Our Lady of Fatima parish, or any other number of parishes, it does not paint a pretty picture. ....Finally, look at the activites and organizations supported by his Ecumenical office, such as the United Religions Initiative. This is not good, folks.

[Rod Dreher]

Just back from lunch. I'm hearing from my Church sources, clerical and lay, that this appointment is being read as a sign that nothing is going to be done that will inconvenience the American bishops.

[mb]

I will probably have to duck after this, but I don't see why a labyrinth is proof of theological nuttiness. I know they are used by New Agers - but so what, lots of things are. I think it is good to reclaim it. It is awesome to go to Chartres and see/walk the labyrinth that was a pilgrimmage to Jerusalem for those who couldn't really get to Outremer.

[Eileen R]

Take for example the Jesuit-run pagan prayer practices, like centering, yoga, and the labrynth (prominently in the main plaza of the University).

Err... yoga? Yoga doesn't need to have anything to do with pagan prayer practices. I'm sure the San Francisco Jesuits are into some weird stuff, but yoga can be a good work-out.

[Justin]

mb,

If you think that the SF Jesuits are going to re-claim anything for Christ, think again. Their residence on Lone Mountain is referred to as the 'Casa de Frutta'.

[Richard]

hello Rod,

I don't get it, either.

As CDF head, Ratzinger was no Ottaviani.

Only to dissenters who disapprove of any disciplining at all - save, perhaps, of those traditionalist fanatics - does he appear authoritarian.

As for the American bishops and the scandals, we shall see. All I can do is pray your sources have misread the appointment.

[Celine]

And hello Richard:

Hey, I agree with you. But I don't see, if one goes along with the Levada logic in San Francisco, how Catholics can be enlisted on doctrinal grounds in a Culture War against recognition of "domestic partnerships" that have the same rights and benefits as "marriage" (whatever its present debased legal status happens to be).

Put another way, there will be no way to argue that Catholics as such should support a proponent of the "Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment" over another that advocates extending the same legal benefits provided to anyone in marriage to anyone in a "domestic partnership." So you can't draft Catholics into such a war, or even have moral grounds to claim that they should enlist.

[Justin]

Eileen, we're not talking the hurdler's stretch, we're talking breathing, "OM", and the whole bag. That's paganism.

[Tom Y.]

Give it a chance, Rod, please.

[Charlene]

The opinions of Andrew Sullivan are give way too much attention.

[john hearn]

Justin,

Well at least you will get a new bishop who may move to clean up the mess that Levada left in SF. If he's as weak as you say, then there may be something to the speculation that he may serve mostly as a figurhead at the CDF. I know that I would be happy if BXVI could find a nice safe home for Mahony in Rome, but as I said above, we will have to wait and see.

[Tony Wilcox]

I agree wth John Hearn . . . let us pray, especially to Our Lady of Fatima

[Cheeky Lawyer]

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations".

--Melchior Cano

Now, I have no idea whether this is a good or bad choice but reading that SF Weekly article makes me doubt that Levada's a good man to be examining the files of the priests who've been accused of abuse. If (and this is a big if) the SF article is to be trusted, it seems that the only time the filth in the priesthood moved him to action was when outside forces such as the law or public pressure forced him to act.

I love Pope Benedict. I love his theological work and his humility and love for Christ and the Church. I trust that he sees something in Levada that we don't but I wonder if he knows about Levada's seemingly poor handling of abuse allegations. Is it unreasonable to wonder whether he knows about this stuff? I have a feeling that Levada wasn't telling him over nice Roman dinners when he was in town.

Before Mark goes and states that I am part of the Chicken Little Brigade, let me say, that I am not. I haven't lost faith in Benedict nor do I believe he's sold out or any of the other accusations that Mark seems so eager to put into the mouths of those he derides. Nor do I have much patience for Mark's uncharitable descriptions and his holier than thou schtick.

I have no idea whether Levada is the best choice. And I realize it wasn't my choice. It probably won't effect me much one way or the other. I will reserve judgment. I wonder what sort of bishop Ratzinger was of Munich. Would one have guessed how good he'd be as head of the CDF based on his handling of that Archdiocese? But I can still raise legitimate questions that occur based on reading of things like the SF Weekly article. I don't doubt Levada's erudition, his intellect, his theological learning etc. I do have concerns about his judgment.

[hieronymus]

Thank you David - all I was doing was asking questions. I'm rather curious as to what distinguishes this man as a theologian (as opposed to a bishop).

I've followed the relations with the Assyrian Church of the East a bit - the Joint Synodal Decree for Promoting Unity was signed at a church in my otherwise insignificant hometown in the suburbs of Chicago, and their Patriarch lives near my grandparents. There really seems to be prospects of reunion with them (especially since they are currently divided), but the current solution to the anaphora question seems theologically questionable. It's one of the more interesting (if not particularly well-known) theological controversies now. Maybe Dave isn't interested, but that's his own business. Personally, I like to research theology.

Mark Shea: Look, nobody denies that you're the most respected and probably best-liked figure in the entire Catholic Blogosphere. But that doesn't give you license to be A) three times as rude and condescending when dealing with people you disagree with and B) three times as sanctimonious when lecturing them about charity and civility. I love you, man, but the exaggeration of these seemingly-at-odds qualities of yours of late is starting to get on my nerves.

[Dave Mueller]

hieronymous,

Oh, I am quite interested in the anaphora question! I just didn't know about it. But I do now.

[Julie]

"how Catholics can be enlisted on doctrinal grounds in a Culture War against recognition of "domestic partnerships" that have the same rights and benefits as "marriage" (whatever its present debased legal status happens to be). "

According to NCR :

"But on Dec. 20, Levada sent a letter to Mayor Willie Brown and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors threatening to sue the city for violating the religious freedom of Catholic Charities.

The archbishop wants the city to exempt Catholic Charities from having to comply with the city's new domestic partnership law. The law, scheduled to take effect June 1, requires city contractors to grant health insurance benefits to gay and lesbian couples, as well as to married heterosexual couples.

In a front-page San Francisco Chronicle story Jan. 28, Levada said the ruling would violate the church's 'religious and ethical tenets.'

'While religiously affiliated organizations extend their services to any and all who are in need, these organizations must also be permitted to maintain their operations ... in a manner that is consistent with their religious principles,' Levada wrote in his letter to the mayor. 'This ensures respect for the constitutional guarantees of free speech and religious freedom.' "

source : http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1997a/020797/020797c.htm

[Rod Dreher]

Is it unreasonable to wonder whether he knows about this stuff?

I think so. Remember, the CDF received all the reports from the scandal in America. It was the gatekeeper of this information in the Vatican. That's why the ascension of Ratzinger to the papacy was so heartening: because if anybody at the Vatican knows how bad the situation here is, it's Ratzinger.

It shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but before I get whomped for being some trademarked something or other, I do not think Benedict's papacy is a failure, despite my grave concern over this appointment. I do think that this appointment signals that the American bishops will be able to rest easier than they might have otherwise. I do hope I'm proven wrong, but Levada's record actually exists; our hopes and wishes are phantoms.

Don't paint me, Mark, as someone who thinks that this means Benedict's papacy is over, for pete's sake. Criticize me for what I've said; that's fair. But not a wildly exaggerated and cartoon version of what I've actually said or actually do believe.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

Only three weeks & Papal bitching crowd is starting to warm up again. I knew the Honeymoon would be over sooner or later. I had hoped it would be later, much later, but the Tragedy I knew it would be sooner.

I really, really, really, really, really, hate being proven right here.

[Mark Shea]

Before Mark goes and states that I am part of the Chicken Little Brigade, let me say, that I am not.

Then you are not the subject of my ridicule. But look around, Cheeky. Our very own gracious host, Miss Amy, has noted that not a little of the blogosphere commentary has become a parody of itself in the whiplash speed with which many (not all) conservatives have passed from "Hosanna!" to "crucify!" over this *one* appointment. It *does* deserve ridicule.

I mean, look at this stuff. Some are speculating that Ratzinger simply posed as an champion of orthodoxy for 25 years so as to carry out his nefarious plan. Others are certain that he intends to betray abuse victims. Others are certain that the author of Dominus Iesus means to implement the United Religions Initiative. Another discerns the Destruction of the Church in the lack of a papal tiara on the coat of arms. The Star Chamber is cranking out the looniness fast and furious. To wit:

* "It is time to make our outrage known. Swamp the Holy Father's email."

* "It will be a sad thing if Benedict XVI chooses to value friendship over leadership in selecting the next head of CDF."

* "Benedict will stand or fall according to his orthodoxy, and all Catholics have access to enough materials on the web to learn what orthodoxy consists of."

* "I think that the elevation of the heresiarch Levada to this high curial post will answer the question once and for all whether this pontificate will be sympathetic to the concerns of so-called 'traditionalists' or even conservatives."

Sorry, but as Amy pointed out, this hysteria from a not-insignificant percentage of Faithful Conservative Catholic[TM] is as over-the-top and out of touch with reality as Andy Sullivan's shrieking hysterics over the election of Benedict. If my mockery points out the absurdity of this hysteria, I don't apologize, for it is hysteria and one eminently worthy of satire. And if you don't share the hysteria, then you are not the subject of my mockery.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

BenYachov are you Mark Shea in disguise?

I think so. Remember, the CDF received all the reports from the scandal in America. It was the gatekeeper of this information in the Vatican. That's why the ascension of Ratzinger to the papacy was so heartening: because if anybody at the Vatican knows how bad the situation here is, it's Ratzinger.

I understand that Rod. What I mean is it unreasonable to think that Ratzinger/Benedict didn't/doesn't know all the ins and outs of Levada's mishandling. While I am sure he has a knowledge of the files of those priests from SF whose files have been sent to the CDF, I don't think we have any way of knowing if he understands the potential mishandling of these claims by Levada. I don't know what is in the files Ratzinger saw. Do you? You may well know as you report on this stuff but if you do please tell us. But I too am with you in scratching my head on this appointment and do have concern, albeit not grave, about this appointment. That doesn't mean you and I believe this papacy is a failure. It means that we are exercising our faculties of judgment. But for some this is considered uncharitable.

[B Knotts]

Mark,

Has it even occurred to you that Amy might also have been referring to you?

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

>BenYachov are you Mark Shea in disguise?

I reply: GOD NO! I'm much too angry a person to be Mark.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

I forgot to add cynical.

[Mark Shea]

Rod:

I didn't say you thought the papacy was over. I do say that you have already imputed wicked designs to Benedict when there is no good reason to do so. Why not wait and see what happens before delivering the autopsy on Benedict's good intentions?

[Jane King]

Dearest Amy, I thank you so much and pray for you and your precious family. May I ask that you consider not referring to Andrew Sullivan again? I pray for him and hope that he one day goes to Heaven, but he does not further the Kingdom of God with his contempt for the Holy Father and the Church Jesus founded. I sincerely believe that your Blog would be much better off without references to his opinions. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Yours in Christ, Mary and Joseph, Jane King

[Jane King]

Dearest Amy, I thank you so much and pray for you and your precious family. May I ask that you consider not referring to Andrew Sullivan again? I pray for him and hope that he one day goes to Heaven, but he does not further the Kingdom of God with his contempt for the Holy Father and the Church Jesus founded. I sincerely believe that your Blog would be much better off without references to his opinions. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Yours in Christ, Mary and Joseph, Jane King

[amy]

I was referring to the rush, not to discuss, but to judge these things in the absence of sure knowledge. The appointment of Levada is puzzling - let's put it that way. No one can deny it, given the previous prefect's theological depth and reputation, and the existence of other "candidates" who approach the Ratzinger's level far more than Levada does. In fact, is Levada isn't even a professional theologian, is he? So yeah, it's puzzling in a way. And discussion is okay, of course, but when you take the Reese and Levada stuff over the past week, see the voluminous number of comments that have been posted over mysteries, frankly, you just have to wonder. I mean, I may think about it, but I can't spend all day on the internet fighting about it, and don't see the point, I guess. I want to wait and see what happens.

[Jerry]

Yes, Amy: Arch. Levada is considered a professional theologian. This appointment isn't so puzzling. He worked for then-Card. Ratzinger.

[amy]

Jane, part of the environment of many blogs, including this one, is the punditocracy. If Andrew Sullivan is continually cited by the media as an expert on things Catholic, even though he's publicly distanced himself from the Church, it's worth nothing when he makes a particularly odd statement - as in this one, pulling out one quote from the Archbishop's past to support his knee-jerk reaction to anything B-16 would do, while ignoring (because he knows nothing about it) factors that are, ironically, riling Sullivan's opponents on this score. In other words, a close look at Levada might suggest that the choice would please Sullivan, if he bothered to examine the issue. But as far as Catholic stuff goes, he can't be bothered any more.

[amy]

Jerry:

Could you provide a list of his publications? That would be helpful.

[tim]

I agree with Mark. The Holy Father is the Holy Father. Let's pray for him, not complain.

[hieronymus]

"hysteria from a not-insignificant percentage of Faithful Conservative Catholic[TM]"

I haven't kept up with blogs too religiously of late, but I've only noticed half a dozen unhinged wackos and a good many people who are understandably confused about this appointment. Smearing the latter by categorizing them with the crazies (who are ALWAYS an exponentially stronger presence on the internet than in reality) and then mocking the whole artificial category you've created is dishonest.

[Mark Shea]

I want to wait and see what happens.

YES!

Thank you Amy for exhibiting your customary common sense.

[Jerry]

Amy, publications don't a theologian make.

[Gerry O' Neil]

"Criticise me for what I've said...not a wildly exaggerated and cartoon version of what I've actually said or actually do believe."

Best of luck with with that one, Rod.

[frank sales]

Mark Shea is just being Mark Shea. The posts on his blog are always edgier and rougher, more uncivil, than in this one. But,as the French say, chac'un a son gout. I know for a fact Mark can take it as well as dish it out, so on behalf of Amy's more genteel patrons:

Mark, shut your sanctimonious pie-hole and restart your own blog if you want to indulge your adolescent craving for overweening wise-cracking sarcasm!

[tim]

I truly believe that Mark Shea is at his best when he analyzes.

[Mark Shea]

St. Blog's Alternate Universe: Where the casual slander of a good man who has served Christ faithfully his whole life is okey doke and just part of normal conversation, but making fun of that casual slander is adolescent and a terribly disruptive influence in a chat that was getting along famously.

Amazing.

[Liam]

The anaphora issue must also be seen in its historical context, not just theological context. I suspect that John Paul II's emphasis on the church of martyrs caused him to hold the Church of the East (the Assyrian Church being the descendant of that) in high esteem. In fact, it was violent, unpredictable and vast persecution by the Sassanid shahs of Persia that caused the Church of the East to formalize its separate juridical nature (as a matter of form to demonstrate to the shahs that it was not a tool of the Roman empire) before there was any hint of theological tension, and this was accepted by the rest of the Church. The Nestorian controversy followed in its wake, but we now know that was more a matter of misunderstanding than heresy in terms of what the Church of the East actually believed. That Church went on to be a great missionary church, evangelizing India and China. It constituted a quarter of Christianity even 4 centuries after the Muslim onslaught. Its demise really began after the Muslim reaction to the Mongol invasions in the 13th century; finally, it probably suffered the most massive martyrdoms (well into the millions) in Christian history at the hands of the forces of Tamerlane circa 1400.

I suspect that the late Pope John Paul II found it churlish to insist that a church with such a sustained and consistent witness to the faith lacked the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.

[John Bianco]

Abp. Levada like someone else mentioned in another post on another blog much like Cdl. Law, at times talking a good line, but letting the hetrodox elements of his archdiocese still have their way, and at least in Cdl. Laws credit, unlike Abp. Levanda, Cdl. Law at least partially cleaned his archdiocean seminary. St. Patricks seminary is still a strongold of the granola wing of the church.

Because Pope Benidict as Cardinal Ratzinger was such a strong supporter of Catholic doctrine and liturgical tradition, and I refuse to believe that a man with such deeply held views will change at a whim, I am not as much a panic as I otherwise would be at this appointment, but still, I have a feeling as Mr Dreher fears, it will be business as usual, especially if Abp. Levada runs the CDF as he ran the SF archdiocese.

As for Marks Sheas antics, I chime in, that while I agree many Trad leaning Catholics jump the gun, Mr Shea is the one is seems to be trhowing the stones on many recent threads.

[John Bianco]

By the way, discussion about someones established track record is not slander.

[DarthYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

I have suggestion. I have an X-Box why don't we all go online & settle this argument with a bunch of JEDI POWER BATTLES!

A mix team of Sith & Jedi I shall call the Shea-ites Vs. another mixed team of Jedi & Dark Jedi called the Dreherites!

That should settle everything.

P.S. I get to be Darth Bane!

[A.B. Culkin]

I have a better idea, DarthYachov (Jim Scott 4th).
1.) Let's stop ascribing bad motives to our neighbors.
2.) Let's pray to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment on all who blog here.
3.) Let's be willing to put aside any erroneous ideas we possess once we become convinced--with the Grace of God--that we are wrong.
It is the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima. Imagine Her Joy if, once and for all, we really did convert.

[DarthYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

A.B. Culkin,
On a serious note we should definitely do what you just said. Amen! Praise Yeshua!

......On a less than serious note I STILL get to be Darth Bane! :-)

[frank sales]

I take back what I said about Mark being able to take it.

[Mark Shea]

"discussion about someones established track record is not slander"

Nor did I say it was. However, claiming that Benedict has been faking orthodoxy, means to replace the gospel with the United Religions initiative, speaks with a "forked tongue", intends to betray abuse victims, is bent on no less than the destruction of the Church, and various other changes on the theme of "He has Betrayed Us!" are attacks on him that are wholly unwarranted by the actual facts.

Listen to Amy. Amy is your friend. Amy is wise. Amy sez: "I want to wait and see what happens."

What if we all try that rather than declaring (or even speculating) that Benedict is a wicked heartless heretical champion of the New Age who has faked his orthodox credentials, who is set on making Rome the seat of anti-christ (I forgot that litttle bit of helpful prognostication from the St. Blog's comment boxes) and who probably doesn't care about victims of abuse either?

I think Amy is being sensible.

[al]

Julie,
Thanks for that citation.

[grateful_catholic]

Here is Abp. Levada's defense of his position in the so-called "domestic partnerships" controversy. My impression on reading it was that the Archbishop got the best outcome possible given the really horrible hornet's nest in which he had to operate in the city on the bay.

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9708/opinion/levada.html

[Mark Shea]

Frank:

Does "taking it" mean I'm not allow to respond?

[Cornelius AMDG]

I'm hearing from my Church sources, clerical and lay, that Rod's sources can't know what this appointment is a sign of and that we'll all have to just wait and see.

[Shawn Mullins]

I'm cautiously optimistic about the the choice of Archbishop Levada for the CDF, because the Holy Father knows what he's doing, and also because Andrew Sullivan disapproves of the choice. One misgiving, however, is that the Abp. hasn't done anything to date to censure the hellish Nancy Pelosi.

[Fran T.]

Nick Bockwinkle often said, "I am the smartest wrestler alive." I do not believe that Mister Shea approaches even remotely this kind of self-promotion. Instead, I assert that Mister Shea is really trying to further the Kingdom of God. May God reward you, Mister Shea.

[Benedetto]

Some Levada bibliography, just quickly pulled off the Web. I think it is safe to say that most of these writings, apart from his doctoral thesis, are pastoral in nature. He does not appear to have the lengthy list of journal publications of an academic theologian. Probably more can be found from the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

"Infallible Church Magisterium and the Natural Law," Excerpta ex dissertatione ad Doctoratum in Facultate Theologiae Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae. Rome. Pontifical Gregorian Press. 1971. 113 pp.

"Catechism for the Universal Church: An Overview," Origins 19 (March 8, 1990)

"The New Catechism: An Overview," Origins, 23 (1994) 733-741.

"Whoever is not with me is against me." "The Catholic Sentinel" on June 2, 1995.

"The Role of the Catechism in Preaching and Teaching." Josephinum Journal of Theology, v. 2, n. 2, (Summer/Fall 1995) pp. 4-17.

"Reflections on the age of confirmation." Theological Studies, v 57 n 2 (Jun 1, 1996) p 302.

The San Francisco Solution." First Things 75 (August/September 1997): 17-19.

"I have set before you life and death". Catholic San Francisco. February 2, 2001.

"A New Apologetics for the New Millenium." SII Lecture at USF. March 5, 2002.

"The Dallas Charter", Catholic San Francisco. June 28, 2002.

"Reflections on Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion". USCCB. June 13, 2004.

"Catholic teaching in the public square – Part II". Catholic San Francsico. July 30, 2004.

[Rod Dreher]

Mark: What if we all try that rather than declaring (or even speculating) that Benedict is a wicked heartless heretical champion of the New Age who has faked his orthodox credentials, who is set on making Rome the seat of anti-christ (I forgot that litttle bit of helpful prognostication from the St. Blog's comment boxes) and who probably doesn't care about victims of abuse either?

Who here among us believes that? I confess I haven't been reading every thread, but I've not seen anybody claiming anything like that. Where are you seeing it, Mark?

If you are conflating the concerns people have expressed about the way Levada has run his diocese with respect to the scandal, ecumenism (participating in URI), dealing with heterodoxy, and so forth with the crazy cartoon picture you've just painted, then I hope you see why people think you have a tendency to unfairly characterize their remarks in your Shavian Straw Man [TM] manner of attack.

Honest question: do you think any criticism of the Levada appointment is legitimate? Do you think John Bianco is wrong to say that criticism of Levada's record is not slander?

[hieronymus]

ENOUGH ALREADY, MARK. You saw five or six anonymous trolls who said stupid paranoid things about the Pope. Okay. Got it. Good. That's stupid. Now please stop stop bringing it up over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, on threads where nothing even remotely resembling the unhinged attitudes you're criticizing is present. Heck, on the thread immediately below this one, you didn't even wait for someone to say something critical before launching into a sanctimonious tirade. We get the point.

Now, in an attempt to steer the discussion in a constructive direction, I'll repeat my request for any information about Levada in regards to the issues I posted at the top of this thread, before Mark hijacked it to complain about Faithful Conservative Catholics.

1) How did he justify not implementing Ecclesia Dei?
2) What is his opinion of private revelations?
3) of the various new lay movements?
4) of the Assyrian liturgy?
5) of the coredemptrix title?
6) of the Ukrainian Patriarchate?

or of any other interesting controversies within the Church besides the usual conservative versus liberal issues?

[Jason]

Regarding point 1:

We met with Archbishop Levada. He said, much to our surprise, that he has not received much in the way of inquiries or support for those who are interested in the Latin Mass. He said that if he heard more of an interest then he would get something going. But he told us at this point, that he's heard no interest in this regard. So, I don't know-- if more people there were expressing an interest, then perhaps something could get off the ground. (Father John Rizzo, FSSP Priest)

[frank sales]

Mark, when I'm just poking fun, yeah. Sorry if that wasn't more obvious. I will now shut MY pie-hole and let people get back to the topic of this thread.

[Jason]

Also, Regarding the title of co-redemptrix, I think the Holy Father's views are more important. He writes in "God and the World":

"I do not think there will be any compliance with this demand, which in the meantime is being supported by several million people, within the foreseeable future. The response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula 'Co-redemptrix' departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings.

"What is true here? Well, it is true that Christ does not remain outside us or to one side of us, but builds a profound and new community with us. Everything that is his becomes ours, and everything that is ours he has taken upon himself, so that it becomes his: this great exchange is the actual content of redemption, the removal of limitations from our self and its extension into community with God. Because Mary is the prototype of the Church as such and is, so to say, the Church in person, this being 'with' is realized in her in exemplary fashion.

"But this 'with' must not lead us to forget the 'first' of Christ: Everything comes from Him, as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him.

"The word 'Co-redemptrix,' would obscure this origin. For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language."

Perhaps there will be an official disavowal of the title through Levada, or by direct Papal act.

[Zarg]

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.motss/browse_thread/thread/49c2f35c9a065dc8/a26bab208a48d882?q=levada&rnum=8&hl=en#a26bab208a48d882

[Rod Dreher]

I think Benedict is really wise about this Co-Redemptrix business. That title gives me the hives.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

>Perhaps there will be an official disavowal of the title (Co-redemptrix) through Levada, or by direct Papal act.

I reply: Well that would make the Protestants happy but it will cheese off the Mary Maximalists.

Still if that did happen count on the anti-Catholic media to report it as "Catholic Church rejects aqdding Mary to Trinity".

[Frank Sales]

Rod is right. Naming Mary Co-Redemptrix would, to put it mildly, not assist the cause of ecumenicalism.

[Rod Dreher]

Well, if it's true, I'm not worried about ecumenicism. Truth is more important than getting along. What gives me hives is the way it fudges the soteriological uniqueness of Christ.

[Gerry O' Neil]

That's why it could surely never happen.

[Richard]

Hello Jason,

Thanks for the message from the FSSP priest on Ecclesia Dei.

Not sure it means much per se. Too often that's a variation of the throwaway line bishops take: "Latin Mass? No one's interested in that," no matter how many requests filter in to the chancery.

Of course, sometimes it's accurate, especially if there are chancery rats who choose not to pass on such requests. With Levada, I just don't know. If he's telling the truth, then I rest at ease. Maybe Frisco just doesn't have many traditionalists. If I were FSSP, I would try to network some people together. There *have* to be at least a few dozen such Catholics in the Bay Area which would drive up to an hour to attend an indult mass.

Hello grateful,

I feel a little better about Levada after reading "The San Francisco Solution," but I think this is the weak chink in his armor:

Some have suggested that Catholic agencies should not be involved in any use of public monies, since it will inevitably involve them in the compromise of principles, if not sooner then later. I recognize that vigilance is required, since loss of funding could be the basis to justify even formal cooperation in evil. But I do not grant that such is the case here.

Others have lamented that I did not challenge this ordinance in court. Surely the city did not want a court challenge. But then neither did I relish the prospect of a lengthy, expensive legal challenge with an uncertain outcome, while making adversaries of city officials with whom we should be working on questions that will help address many pressing social needs.

1. Paragraph 1 realy is the quandry he's going to have face one day. That the Church and its agencies will have to face. Take's Caesar's money and you risk having to take his rules. Turning down the city money would really hurt Catholic Charities' ability to help people out; but eventually, they'e going to have to make that hard choice. Levada likely only postponed the day of reckoning. If I were Catholic agencies I would start looking now for ways to wean myself off the public teat.

2. Some thought he had a good legal case to take to court. The consequences he alludes to were very real, but in the end the principle at stake was worth fighting for.

Well- moot point. We'll see how he fares at CDF.

[Benedetto]

Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici,

(Voice of the People for Mary Mediatrix) is an international lay organization that seeks to work for the papal definition of our Lady as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate by gathering petitions from the faithful throughout the world in humble support of our Holy Father for this final Marian dogma. Vox Populi is distributing Professor Miravalle's work throughout the world in nine languages, and has already received nearly 7 million petitions. Vox Populi has also received the endorsements of 43 cardinals and over 550 bishops worldwide from the Universal Church. The two previous popes who defined Marian Dogma, Pius IX and Pius XII, both referred to the international petitions of the faithful as one of the criteria that led to the final acts of papally defining the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Dr. Mark Miravalle, Associate Professor of Theology and Mariology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, has written the book, MARY: COREDEMPTRIX, MEDIATRIX, ADVOCATE. This work theologically expounds these roles of Mary in Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the teachings of the Church's Magisterium, and humbly calls for our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, to proclaim and define the universal mediation of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate as "Christian dogma revealed by God, in rightful veneration of the Mother of Jesus, and for the good of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ". Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, O.P., who served as Papal Theologian for every pope from Pius XII to John Paul II, has written the foreword in strong endorsement of this work, and himself asserts, quoting the call for papal definition of Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, "I share the hope of Dr. Mark Miravalle".

I expect these folks to continue their work.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

It may be these Marian doctrinal formulas are true but that doesn't make them prudent or necessary to declare dogmas.

Co-Redemptrix's problem is that it is never explained how Mary can be Co-redemtrix to her own redemtion.

That is also the same problem with the title Mediatrix of All Graces. How can Mary be Mediatrix of the Graces which she herself has recieved?

Until a latter day Dun Scotus comes along to clear it all up don't count on these tiles becoming the fifth & sixth Marian dogmas any time soon.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

"What if we all try that rather than declaring (or even speculating) that Benedict is a wicked heartless heretical champion of the New Age who has faked his orthodox credentials, who is set on making Rome the seat of anti-christ (I forgot that litttle bit of helpful prognostication from the St. Blog's comment boxes) and who probably doesn't care about victims of abuse either?"

It seems others have already answered this better than I can but that doesn't mean I won't try. I wonder sometimes if you write things hoping to egg people on and get the response that you otherwise could only imagine and make up. So you pointed us to a few comments on some blog. Nothing save one or two comments on this thread even remotely resembles anything you just described.

What if you start acting a little more like Amy and a little less like Andrew Sullivan? (ouch I know but frankly that's who you resemble with such gross generalizations and sweeping judgments).

[grateful_catholic]

The more I read in Abp. Levada's own statements and homilies, the more I suspect that he was selected to head CDF based on his *combination* of fidelity to Catholic teaching *and* pastoral sensitivity. There is a subset of Catholics who are dissatisfied with any statement of Catholic teaching on the immorality of homosexual conduct which does not demean those who engage in it to the greatest extent possible. It is exactly this "thumb-in-your-eye" demeaning which it seems to me the Archbishop has been careful to avoid in dealing with the issue, while not betraying the moral truths it is his duty to teach - and in this, as I see it, Abp. Levada is a model for all Catholics.

[Victor Morton]

So (assuming it is true, we don't really know, this is all the rankest, baseless ecclesial-nerd speculation, blah, blah, blah) could that inference of grateful_catholic mean that Benedict might want to say something major on homosexuality soon?

A priest friend nodded and said "yes" in a "good thought" congratulatory way when I suggested the day after Benedict's election that one thing he might do about The Situation is make more definitive something like the 1961 canon-law directive. Or maybe change it in light of later Church documents on Topic H (with which it is hard to reconcile). Cuz remember that Ratzinger as CDF head issued the 1986 letter on homosexual persons that explicitly said it was reining in some of the more extravagant interpretations of the 1975 Declaration on sexual ethics.

[Lawrence King]

For balance, I'd like to point out several of the "orthodox" / "conservative" things in Levada's resume:

1. He was archbishop of Portland from 1986-1995 and oversaw the cleaning up of Mount Angel Seminary. This place went from full-on Michael Rose hellhole to one of the best seminaries in the USA.

2. He not only worked on the Catechism, he was one of the leaders in the fight against the inclusive-language English translation of the CCC. See Wrenn & Whitehead's Flawed Expectations for the history of this -- they clearly see Levada as a hero.

3. In 1986, even before the CDF itself, Levada publicly stated "There is no right to dissent, if by that is meant to teach an alternative viewpoint to non-infallible teachings of the magisterium." (I don't have the quote in front of me, so this is inexact.)

For all I know -- for all you know -- he's a great theologian who isn't good at being a diocesan bishop. I'm not saying this is the case -- I'm just saying his theology is more important than his pastoral history in his new job.

[Lawrence King]

Here is one data point regarding his theology:

Levada's views on infallibility may be closer to Francis Sullivan's than to Tarcisio Bertone's.

Bertone's views (which appeared in the CDF's 1998 Commentary on the Professio Fidei, signed by Ratzinger and Bertone, but probably written mostly by Bertone) include the view that natural law moral teachings are part of the Secondary Object of Infallibility.

Francis Sullivan SJ's views are that while moral guidelines ("do unto others...") may fall within the scope of infallibility, specific moral norms ("euthanasia is immoral") do not.

Levada's views (at least in his 1971 dissertation) leaned towards those of Sullivan. Levada wrote that a pope or council certainly could extend the Secondary Object to include natural law norms, but in the absence of such an extension, he sided with the tradition view that the Secondary Object did not include these.

However, JP2's Evangelium Vitae does say that the norms on murder, euthanasia, and abortion have been infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium. Sullivan was ambivalent about whether to change his views after JP2's encyclical.

I'm guessing that Levada will follow JP2's teaching over his own 1971 dissertation....

[np]

I'm curious about whether anyone read Levada's own defense of his decision to compromise with SF city officials over extension of health benefits (Posted above by grateful-catholic). I agree that it was very compelling. He took steps to oppose the law, when that didn't work he worked out a compromise that allowed the Church to avoid doing anything contrary to Catholic teaching. I like the analogy with life insurance beneficiaries. Is anyone going to argue that every diocese should be investigating the named beneficiaries of all its employees to make sure there are no gay lovers named. Anyway, I'd be interested in a thoughtful critique of what Levada wrote.

Here's the link to the article again: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9708/opinion/levada.html

[ml]

http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/1999/1199kw.htm

The 12:30 p.m. Sunday Mass at St. Margaret Mary's is the only indult Mass celebrated in the Oakland Diocese, a diocese which serves 500,000 Catholics. Within the Archdiocese of San Francisco, however, no Indult Mass is offered on a regular basis. According to archdiocesan administrators, the Archdiocese of San Francisco offers Masses in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese (in the dialects of Mandarin and Cantonese), Korean, Croatian, Slovenian, Arabic and Russian, but no regular indult Mass in Latin.

That's not to say that San Franciscan laity haven't tried to obtain Archbishop Levada's approval for one. Ann Gervasi, who has lived in the city all her life, says that she helped collect signatures to petition an indult Mass. "We sent in 85 signatures," recounts Gervasi, "and I received a reply from Archbishop Levada that they would think about it, discuss it, and get back to me -- that was in July 1998."

In 1999 when the article was written, St. Margaret Mary’s had a monthly Tridentine Rite Mass and two Latin Novus Ordos on Sunday. They began offering the Tridentine Rite in 1989 with the permission of Bishop John Cummins, who offered the parish’s 10th anniversary Tridentine Rite Mass in 1999. His successor, Bishop Allen Vigneron, offered a Latin Novus Ordo Mass at St. Margaret Mary’s in 2003, and is fully supportive of the Indult Mass. According to the St. Margaret Mary parish website, they now have a Tridentine Rite Mass every day of the week.

[Jim]

Liam is right about the Assyrian anaphora issue. A long and honorable tradition among Christians whose liturgical language is the Lord's own language and who have withstood unimaginable persecution is worth more than a simplistic liturgical theology based on "magic words".

[Charles A.]

Re - permission for the Indult Mass,

Although I attend it weekly (and will drive 50+ miles rather than attend the alternative), a bishop is prudent to determine whether the old Rite can be celebrated adequately (and whether there are sufficient priests who can 'alternate' in case of illnes, etc); whether the priests really 'know' the rite (I've seen it butchered ..), and whether it can reasonably be expected that a given number of people will attend. It is not the 'private property' of a clique.

Of course I deplore this situation, and I pray that it changes in the future - but it's the reality. If I were a bishop, I'd FOSTER the old liturgy through my own seminary perhaps or through the mainstream, but if it's going to be an isolated thing, I'd be cautious.

And this from a trad on the rad side....

[Charles A.]

As for Apb. Levada being a theologian ...

Well, he might be as good as you get for his generation (since real thomists have now been marginalized). After all, H.H. Benedict himself is a theologian who was formed in the modernist-leaning mid. 20C. european phenomenologist/personalist, etc. etc. ... but then so was Dr. von Hildebrand, the icon of the con/trads.

[Charles A.]

Just want to be clear: Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange is MY ideal theologian....

[Charles A.]

Leaving aside personal references, it's obvious already that H.H. Benedict will be re-orienting the papacy away from the personality-cult and the 'maximalist/infallibilist' notion of papal power (that's not to deny the doctrine of papal infallibility as defined - as EXACTLY defined - by Vatican I). He said as much in his homily last Saturday at the Lateran.

But there has to be a lot of tolerance and understanding of prot-to-catholic converts whose measure of all things is the 80's/90's papacy of JPII (and who love the de-incarnational style of the postconciliar church - just like protestantism but with stronger dogma. Their hearts may be in the right place even if their historic understanding is awfully skewed.... What's harder to deal with is when they set themselves up as MAJOR PUNDITS ....