Just got word that, following a meeting with AMU faculty members who expressed concern about the future of the institution, Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, was offered a position at AMU.
The new position is not provost but a triple position of theologian-in-residence, being a member of the theology faculty, and also head of the university’s abroad program.
Fr. Fessio has accepted.
Interestingly, he is also scheduled to be inducted into the Catholic education hall of fame.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
The new position is not provost but a triple position of theologian-in-residence, being a member of the theology faculty, and also head of the university’s abroad program.
Still a step down =^(
Well THIS is certainly an interesting turn of events! I sure would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that meeting.
‘thann
Tom Monaghan : AMU :: George Steinbrenner : The Yankees
I guess that makes Fr. Fessio Billy Martin.
You mess with a bull, you get the horns.
Monaghan messed with a Papal one!
You mess with ‘Fess’, you’ll die like the rest!
Another example of the power of the blogosphere.
Don,
how, exactly?
JD, the news of Fr. Fessio’s firing was spread all over the Catholic weblogs and news websites, and in those venues the disapproval of what Monaghan and Healy had done was loud and strong. Folks expressed their opinion that it looks like AMU is doomed, and/or said they would no longer support AMU and wouldn’t think of sending their kids there.
Add that to the on-campus opposition and public student protests, and it’s not surprising that Monaghan and Healy would immediately race to try to undo the damage they’d inflicted on themselves (while still saving face by not giving him his old job back).
Whether this will be enough remains to be seen, because this latest episode is actually one more log on the fire that now threatens to become an inferno that will consume the entire endeavor.
From what I’ve read, it sounds as if Fessio was an excellent theologian and educator, just not a very good college administrator, considering all of the practical financial responsibilities involved. It sounds like he’s a better fit for his new role.
Clearly this is not enough to undo the major damage these people have done to themselves. In fact it just holds the administration up to further ridicule. The only way that AMU can recover from this is for the board to remove Monaghan and Healy from day-to-day operations and put Fessio in at the top. That’s the only way to get a positive outcome from all this.
“….Fessio was an excellent theologian and educator, just not a very good college administrator….”
This was true of Fulton Sheen also who supposedly ran his diocese into the red while being a great Bishop in his teaching role.
I wonder how much of this is financial! I and others I know who are considered “founders” (just means you let them take money monthly out fo your checking ccount!)immediately emailed AMU that we were ending our support specifically due to the firing.
The problem I have with this whole episode has nothing to do with firing or hiring, but rather with the method in which this occured. I have had many employees in my life, but NEVER, could I give one of them a single day..”immediately”..to pack up and go!
Really, not only is this not Christian, but it’s not even human! Unless Fr. Fessio committed some heinous crime, involving police investigations etc.. this is completely ‘over the top’! Especially considering the obviously HUGE media spectacle it was bound to create!
Christ and the Holy Church teaches that that we are to love and respect those we don’t agree with. We are to treat them with charity and regard their person. We are to do unto other’s what we would have them do unto us!
What kind of hypocrisy is going on at this so-called Catholic School? I don’t even think Donald Trump has been ‘so low’ as to force someone to ‘vacate’ their offices on the very same day that they are notified…immediately!? So, it is certainly an act of humility on the part of Fr. Fessio to accept the new jobs offered to him by AMU after such an insult!
If someone, or some group, running AMU need to learn something, it’s the lesson that charity and courtesy needs to be applied and demontrated to all! This is what it means to LIVE Catholic and not just study it!
The AMU management should be forced to add a new major to their curriculum, and each manager responsible for this ‘hoopla’ forced to get a degree in it… they can call it “Common Courtesy and Business Etiquette 101”!
Don and Anon,
I know it ripped through the Catholic blogosphere–I just think its pretty premature to assume that was in a way causative of what happened. They correlate, but correlation does not equal causation.
“I just think its pretty premature to assume that was in a way causative of what happened.”
I don’t. The commentary on the weblogs was a big part of the public outcry that would inevitably result from so lamebrained and cruel an act as this, and it’s unreasonable to doubt that the outcry had nothing to do with their quick partial about-face.
With the gracious, humble and charitable way that he handled this affront, Fr. Fessio comes out of this looking better than ever. Unfortunately Monaghan, Healy, and AMU have suffered a major hit.
Lastly, I’m the guy who wrote that anonymous post timestamped “Mar 23, 2007 5:04:13 AM.” This is the second time in as many days that one of my posts has shown up on the weblog without my name and email address. I don’t know what’s going on with that.
Reportedly, Fr. Fessio was asked to resign. He refused. Not only did he refuse a dignified exit, he apparently called students “weeping” and created a soap opera. So much for Jesuits and obedience …
“Obedience”? I didn’t realize Fr. Fessio’s religious superiors had ordered him to leave.
I don’t think “refusing a dignified exit” or even “creating a soap opera” is a sin, or even a scandal. I don’t think we know enough about the circumstances to assign blame.
Reportedly, Fr. Fessio was asked to resign. He refused. Not only did he refuse a dignified exit, he apparently called students “weeping” and created a soap opera. So much for Jesuits and obedience …
WOW!
I guess that this must be the TRUTH then!
Too bad this nasty habit of mine requiring CONCRETE EVIDENCE and NOT merely hearsay…
Sir,
Till 1970 many Jesuits appointed as Bishops of the Catholic Church. The liberation theology and inter religious dialog introduced into the Jesuits Society, the Society has been lost its credentials, its value and its domination into the Catholic Church.
the Society has been lost its credentials, its value and its domination into the Catholic Church.
Uhhh… Mr. Benziger, I hate to disappoint you, but there was actually a time in Church History when Jesuits were actually considered ‘heretics’.
I remembered a moment when this was, in fact, mentioned to Fr. Pacwa at an EWTN program and he simply smiled.
(Fr. Pacwa — That guy is SO awesome though!)
“Reportedly, Fr. Fessio was asked to resign. He refused. Not only did he refuse a dignified exit, he apparently called students ‘weeping’ and created a soap opera.”
First time anyone’s heard any such thing. What proof do you have that this happened, Mark? After they demanded his resignation, he resigned, and he then sent the students a very short email message announcing that he had resigned after he’d been asked to do so. That email is posted online. I don’t know where you got your information about him calling students weeping. Perhaps you can fill us in on that?
At least with Father Fessio back at AMU we can count of truthful Catholicism being taught — at least if the Pizza man leaves him alone:)
http://www.spiritdaily.com/fessioletter.htm
“Just a few hours ago, I spoke with a friend who is a student there, who had just spoken with Fr. Fessio himself minutes before.
“In tears, he explained that the university had asked him to resign, he refused, and they were ‘firing’ him. He said that he was asked to pack his bags and leave immediately. He needed to cancel some appointments and figure out where he was going to stay for the night.
“Obviously, as I’m sure you have been hearing, this has created quite a stir locally. Our local news just covered the story showing students protesting, and demanding to know why this has happened other than the ‘irreconcilable differences’ justification given.
At least with Father Fessio back at AMU we can count of truthful Catholicism being taught — at least if the Pizza man leaves him alone:)
Oh yeah, Mark, I can see where your statement:
“Reportedly, Fr. Fessio was asked to resign. He refused. Not only did he refuse a dignified exit, he apparently called students ‘weeping’ and created a soap opera.”
was SO TRUTHFUL given the above! NOT!
Mark:
When you made the slanderous statement “Not only did he refuse a dignified exit”, was that because it was actually the case or was it because he failed to leave the premises in 30 minutes or less?
Canonically, Monaghan was not Fr. Fessio’s superior, but he was his boss. The virtue of obedience (if not the ecclesiastical oath) would seem to suggest that Fr. would have taken the “graceful” exit when it was offered.
When an employee is “fired” I don’t think an immediate exit from the premises is unprecidented. Presumably, Fr. Fessio had access to donor lists and other sensitive information.
I’m not sure who the real prima donna is here, Fessio or Monaghan …
Esau,
The dignified exit would have been to resign when he was asked to do so by his boss.
Mark:
What I have trouble with is how you phrased your comment.
Of course, for all we know, you may very well be correct in your statement; however, we’ve yet to uncover the facts.
The only ones who are really “in the know” are those who were actually there witnessing the events as they unfolded.
Mind you, anybody can bend the lense to suit their truth on the matter.
(By the way, the ’30 minutes or less’ phrase was a poor attempt at an inside joke on Dominos.)
Mark,
Evidently he felt strongly about NOT resigning when asked to, for whatever reasons. Office politics being what they are, who knows what really happened.
And, I doubt that he would have gotten his 3-in-1 new position had he resigned.
If I had to make a choice before knowing any facts, I would stand with him before a corporate guy, regardless of how Catholic Monaghan is. I’ve worked way too long in corporate America.
I disagree. Virtue doesn’t necessarily impel one to fall on one’s sword at the boss’s behest. Depending on circumstances, a “less graceful” choice may be the more prudent or reasonable one.
If you’re “not sure,” why do you seem to be assuming Fessio bears the onus of guilt?
“When an employee is ‘fired’ I don’t think an immediate exit from the premises is unprecidented.”
In academia, when an official or teacher is fired and told to vacate the premises the same day, it’s because they broke the law or did something like commit a sexual offense with a student.
That’s what Monaghan did to Fr. Fessio. But note how graciously he responded with the way they shamed him.
But thank you for providing the source of your information. It does back up what you said, even though it fails to support your uncharitable interpretation of it against Fr. Fessio.
” an employee is “fired” I don’t think an immediate exit from the premises is unprecidented. Presumably, Fr. Fessio had access to donor lists and other sensitive information.”
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if AMU violated Florida law by kicking him out of his place of residence (he lives on campus) with a few hours notice. Tenant’s rights, anybody?
Here’s another article which suggests Fr. Fessio has a very healthy self-image:
Former Ave Maria provost: ‘I think it was a mistake to fire me’
http:www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/mar/22/former_ave_maria_provost_i_think_it_was_mistake_fi/%3Flatest&cid=1114664392
Whatever, Mark.
..At least He’s HONEST!! š
JP says,
“But note how graciously he responded with the way they shamed him.”
Graciously? The students are in an uproad and now have a unholy mistrust of the University Administration. All because Fr. Fessio believes he is “bigger” than the instutuion.
The students are in an uproad and now have a unholy mistrust of the University Administration.
Good. They should. The University Administration is beholden to an eccentric (some would say megalomaniacal) super-rich guy.
All because Fr. Fessio believes he is “bigger” than the instutuion.
Nope. Because he wasn’t willing to falsely confess to seducing co-eds, waterboarding students who were late for classes, or clubbing baby seals in order to cover up the Administration’s gross idiocy. If I were him I would have not been nearly as gracious as he was.
Nope. Because he wasn’t willing to falsely confess to seducing co-eds, waterboarding students who were late for classes, or clubbing baby seals in order to cover up the Administration’s gross idiocy. If I were him I would have not been nearly as gracious as he was.
hehehe… first time anon with NO NAME said something remotely ‘acceptable’!
(of course, the jury is still out on what he mentioned on the other thread and so I can’t really say this is the only comment he’s made so far that’s ‘remotely acceptable’)
“Graciously? The students are in an uproad and now have a unholy mistrust of the University Administration.”
How is that Fr. Fessio’s fault? That was caused by his being fired without any clear explanation and being told to immediately leave the campus. I guess you could pin the blame on him for not just going away secretly and refusing to talk about his firing, just as you blame him for having the audacity to disagree with his being fired and for shedding tears about it.
Mark, I just don’t know what planet you live on, or what planet you’re from.
Mark, I just don’t know what planet you live on, or what planet you’re from.
Mark’s planet
Fr. Fessio is free to disagree with his dismissal and (presumably)shed tears about it. But to incite a riot among a group of young, easily manipulated students was undignified and unseemly.
It would have been far easier if he simply accepted the judgement of Mr. Monaghan, his employer, that he was not the best person for the provost position, and went on his way.
It has even been suggested that Fr. Fessio “pulled rank” by taking his case to his mentor, the Holy Father:
“Do’es bad boys made me wev da sandbox!”
But to incite a riot among a group of young, easily manipulated students was undignified and unseemly.
How can you actually claim that he INCITED a riot?
That’s like saying KOBE BRYANT was actually the one who incited the riots in Los Angeles that one time after a LAKERS game!
Esau, are you smoking crack?!
“But to incite a riot among a group of young, easily manipulated students was undignified and unseemly.”
Good grief! He sent out a 2-line email, as is customary (on my planet) when somebody is leaving. He talked to people who came knocking on his door. Riot? RIOT??? Because students (a reported 80% of whom support him) objected?
Where’s the blame on the incredibly inept administrators who dismissed the most popular and influential figure on campus, gave him hours to pack up and leave, gave nobody any reason for it, did all this while school was in session and students were on campus, and then backpedalled 24 hours later when the OBVIOUS repercussions actually repercussed?
Esau, are you smoking crack?!
Are you?
Because the only CRACK I’m seeing is the one in your LOGIC!
“But to incite a riot among a group of young, easily manipulated students was undignified and unseemly.”
Riot? Were there people hurt or property destroyed on campus that I haven’t heard about?
What are talking about, Mark? “Incited a riot”??? There was no riot. There were meetings, and students calling for his reinstatement, and tears, and prayers. That’s a riot, eh?
As for the rumor that he may have called the Holy Father, he has been quoted denying that and saying he didn’t think the Holy Father had even heard of his firing.
You evidently want very badly to believe that Fr. Fessio was solely, or mostly, at fault in this matter. I don’t know why you want to believe that, and there’s no reason to believe that either.
Mark,
ConFessi-o that you don’t like Fessi-o!
Hello! As the parent of one of the “young, easily manipulated students” I really must strenuosly object to the use of the term “riot” in regards to said “young, easily manipulated students.”
The “riot,” and I use the term with a bucket of salt, consisted of students gathering to PRAY the ROSARY in front of the admin building. At a later meeting, the students requested answers which were not forthcoming from the administration.
Some of the students were pretty intense according to my child but “riot???”
Oh, puh-leeze.
Does this situation really need more drama???
Mark,
You said that you don’t know who the bigger prima donna is. reading your posts, one can safely guess to which of the two you are giving the benefit of the doubt.
Question: do you read New Oxford Review(aka, the magazine that think’s it is better/holier than the Pope and Fr. Fessio) ?
Mark,
From the various responses here, your INCITING a RIOT on this BLOG was undignified and unseemly!
REFEREE PLEASE!!!!!
Maybe Moynihan took the time to read Father Fessio publishing of DeLubac, who was suspected of heresy before Vatican II, but then somehow along with Karl Rahner, became one of the chief periti’s and Theologians (With Rahner and DeLubac, how can one expect anything but a disaster?)
In De Lubac’s The Mystery of the Supernatural he tries to reteach the the grace-nature of St Thomas, and that there is in reality no such thing as “pure nature”.
It took Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis to clear things up and then De Lubac was asked by his Jesuit superiors to stop teaching and to give up his research as he was trying to undermine the doctrine of the gratuity of grace.
Then one reads Pope Pius X Encyclical Pascendi where he teaches:
Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favourable circumstances, cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousnessā¦ this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.
Then some 50 years later, Henri de Lubac teaches in a clear contradiction:
ā¦the idea of God is mysteriously present in us from the beginning, prior to our concepts, although beyond our grasp without their help, and prior to all our argumentation, in spite of being logically unjustifiable without them; it is the inspiration, the motive power and justification of them allā¦.
In its primary and permanent state the idea of God is not, then, a product of the intelligence. It is not a concept. It is a reality: the very soul of the soul; a spiritual image of the Divinity, an āeikonā.
“At a later meeting, the students requested answers which were not forthcoming from the administration.”
Jim,
You’re the expert on Florida law. What are the legal implications of an employer discussing a firing with the media or even the students and faculty of AMU? Was Monaghan really at liberty to explain why Fr. Fessio was fired? If he thought Fr. Fessio was doing a poor job as Provost (perhaps engaging in liturgical wars on campus or publicly siding with a baptist seminary rector who suggests “gay” embryos should be genetically altered) is he not within his rights to fire him?
Of course, Fessio is untouchable because he’s a Ratzinger protoge and celebrates the NO ad orentam. Be careful how you pick your heroes. I remember when Cardinal Law was the darling of starch-shirt conservatives too.
“Of course, Fessio is untouchable because he’s a Ratzinger protoge and celebrates the NO ad orentam.”
Translation: “I have failed to provide any legitimate reason for my claims and insinuations that Fr. Fessio was at fault for disliking the way he was treated and shedding tears, so I will portray those who have called me on it as Fessio groupies.”
As for your question about Florida employment law, I wonder how that would apply to someone like Fr. Fessio, whose position as Provost was, if I’m not mistaken, volunteer and unpaid.
“publicly siding with a baptist seminary rector who suggests ‘gay’ embryos should be genetically altered”
Well, you’ve gotten almost everything else wrong about this story, so you may as well get that wrong too . . . .
Oh, and John, who the heck is Moynihan and what did he have to do with Fr. Fessio’s forced resignation? Please take your Symphony Of A Single Note somewhere else — it got pretty stale and lifeless a loooooong time ago.
“You said that you don’t know who the bigger prima donna is. reading your posts, one can safely guess to which of the two you are giving the benefit of the doubt.”
Here’s what we know about how Mr. Monaghan:
For reasons he cannot reveal publicly, he asks Fr. Fessio to step down as Provost. After Fessio refuses he terminates him and asks him to leave campus immediately.
After the students revolt, he rehires Fessio to a non-administrative teaching position.
Here’s what we know about how Fr. Fessio:
For reasons which were not publicly revealed (but may include engaging in liturgical wars on campus and making stupid statements about “gay” embryos) he is asked to resign. He refuses and forces the Founder to fire him. Instead of leaving peacefully he informs students he was “wrongfully” terminated, informs the press “I wouldn’t fire me” and calls the Vatican so that pressure may be applied to “give me back my University”.
And you wonder why I’m choosing Mr. Monaghan as my primma donna?
“For reasons which were not publicly revealed (but may include engaging in liturgical wars on campus and making stupid statements about “gay” embryos) he is asked to resign.”
Here’s what we know about Mark: For reasons which were not publically revealed (but may include Monaghan’s possession of evidence of him kicking puppies or robbing elderly people of their Social Security checks)he has made outright false statements about Fr. Fessio inciting a riot among the students of AMU.
That’s the great thing about parentheses, I suppose.
Jordan says,
“Well, you’ve gotten almost everything else wrong about this story, so you may as well get that wrong too . . . .”
Are you required to back up your statement with any logic or facts or are you speaking ex cathedra? I thought only the Holy Father gets to do that? What facts have I gotten wrong?
http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=396dd44d-4e84-4a59-b60f-680cd64e9e6c
Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.”
And what on earth is stupid about the statement you quote?
“and calls the Vatican so that pressure may be applied to “give me back my University”.”
You say we KNOW this, but you offer no evidence. With that standard in mind, we also know you deliberately trip blind people walking on public sidewalks.
Franklin,
I’ve already sourced one student account of how Fr. Fessio unprofessionally tried to victimize himself:
http://www.spiritdaily.com/fessioletter.htm
“Just a few hours ago, I spoke with a friend who is a student there, who had just spoken with Fr. Fessio himself minutes before.
“In tears, he explained that the university had asked him to resign, he refused, and they were ‘firing’ him. He said that he was asked to pack his bags and leave immediately. He needed to cancel some appointments and figure out where he was going to stay for the night.”
Still waiting for the explanation of the “riot” in which, so far as is known, no one was hurt and no property was destroyed.
That’s an attempt “to victimize himself”?
Franklin,
Here’s one source for the story that Fessio or one of his groupies called the Vatican:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/03/fessio-great-burden-lifted.html
“and speaking of the latter, allies of his pupil communicated the developments to the Holy See shortly after learning of them.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Holy Father knew [what happened] before going to bed tonight,” one said.”
Poor guy, lots of followers but nowhere to lay his head for the night …
I asked for evidence that he called the Vatican, not that he attempted to “victimize himself” (whatever that means.)
I can’t imagine how you can write in a language you aren’t capable of reading.
You STILL haven’t posted evidence that Fessio called the Vatican. You haven’t even cited hearsay reports of such.
You posted this:
“Here’s what we know about how Fr. Fessio:
For reasons which were not publicly revealed (but may include engaging in liturgical wars on campus and making stupid statements about “gay” embryos)and calls the Vatican so that pressure may be applied to “give me back my University”.”
the bolded text above are most emphatically NOT things we know. The italicised portion is presented as a quotation from fr. Fessio. A quotation you can’t source because you made it up.
Face it, for whatever reason, you’re willing to misrepresent the truth (claiming we know the above, inventing quotes, accusing Fessio of inciting a riot, etc.) Whether this is from a dislike of Fessio or some sort of toadyism toward Monaghan, who can say?
I somehow deleted a chunk of text above, and apologise. Please insert an ellipse between “embryos…and”.
bill,
You’re welcome to take issue with the characterization of the students reaction (fed by Fr. Fessio’s emotional appeal to at least one student) a “riot”. However, you may ask yourself whether this kind of student/administration confrontation is appropriate to Our Lady’s University:
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070323/NEWS0104/70323003/1075
“After an outcry of angry students after the Wednesday dismissal of Ave Maria University Provost the Rev. Joseph Fessio, officials at the school announced Thursday they would keep the administrator on in a different role.”
Copout, Mark. You were wrong. Just admit it. That’s what a Man does when he’s wrong.
You got me Bill. Fr. Fessio did not incite a “riot”; rather he incited “an outcry of angry students …”
Thanks for helping me see the light…
“Words mean things.”
Riot In The Second Degree (Section 240.05, New York State Penal Law): “A person is guilty of riot in the second degree when, simultaneously with four or more other persons, he engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly causes or creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.”
Inciting To Riot (Section 240.08, New York State Penal Law): “A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm.”
What we got going here appears to be a classic showdown between Spirit or charism and Money. Both have a degree of power. ‘Spirit and charism’ need the use of ‘money’ to form the physical structure in which to operate. But ‘Money and physical structure’ need the ‘spirit and charisma’ to actually give that structure a living and growable potential, which can acrually generate both more spiret and Charism, and more money too.
It’s a great marraige when it works well when the main charisma force and the main money force are on the same level of understanding and agreement. However, if there is any confusion, and the agreement somehow falters, then there will evidently be a division or divorce that will take place.
Clearly Fr. Fession operates on the Charisma side. And Monaghan primarily has the money and financial power. He also has some charisma, but this is apparently at odds with Fessio’s charisma.
And so there is a show down.
And what we have seen is that Fessio has played hi’charisma’ card, and showed to Monaghan the power and even financial value of his Charisma.
And Monaghan has experienced it first hand with all the opposition to Fessio’s abrupt firing. Monaghan has also understood that it is very possible for everything he has worked for to crumble to the dust without the demonstratably powerful carisma of Fr.Fessio, and he is correct in this analysis.
And Fr. Fessio, having few financial resorces to otherwise rely on, knows that the project he loves will also be destroyed if he leaves. And he doesn’t want to kill his ‘charism born’ baby, AMU.
Hence we have this present resolution.
That’s how I see it. I really hope it works!!
God bless both of them and God bless AMU!!
“Are you required to back up your statement with any logic or facts or are you speaking ex cathedra?”
Yes. You evidently think you’re not required to, though.
“What facts have I gotten wrong?”
In this case, it’s not your facts that are wrong, but the way you’re “spinning” (twisting) the facts. It indicates you think there is something wrong with what Fr. Fessio said, which was nothing more than a sound application of Catholic principles to a purely hypothetical situation. Perhaps that’s because you don’t believe homosexuality is a disorder, or perhaps it’s because you believe genetic therapies are immoral, or perhaps you just have it in for Fr. Fessio for some unfathomable reason and are trying to find something bad you can say about it. There could be another reason, but my money’s on the third option.
This must be some new meaning of the word “peacefully” I was previously unaware of. (Like “rioting” rosary prayers.)
Jordan posted:
“Oh, and John, who the heck is Moynihan and what did he have to do with Fr. Fessio’s forced resignation? Please take your Symphony Of A Single Note somewhere else — it got pretty stale and lifeless a loooooong time ago.”
Jordan, sorry for the mispelling, but even with that one would I think recognize he is the founder of AMU, Mr. Tom Monaghan and I guess he got tired of Father Fessio acting as provst to push forth his own agenda at the expense of AMU. Last I checked it was Mr MONAGHAN’s money not Fessio, and because Fessio is so hooked with DeLubac and other heretical theologians maybe he got exposed once and for all and this time even a Vatican coverup as in the pedophila scandal could not save him as other corrupt priests have been able to hide under
John:
“because Fessio is so hooked with DeLubac and other heretical theologians maybe he got exposed once and for all and this time even a Vatican coverup as in the pedophila scandal could not save him as other corrupt priests have been able to hide under”
If you have evidence publish it. If not retract. If you don’t retract then you are guilty of caluminy. BTW:”maybe” doesn’t protect you from the sin. You have painted someone as a heretic and pedophile. Prove it.
Jordan,
I think it’s somewhat misguided of Fr. Fessio to associate himself with a crackpot Seminary Rector who says that “gay” embryos should be genetically altered …
Enjoy your weekend …
You’re right, Jordan; “spinning” is the word. Facts, or lack of same, are irrelevant to one with an axe to grind. I doubt his animosity to Father Fessio began this week.
Retract what?
That he was working for a private university not protected by Vatican or USCCB coverup provisions, and was walked off campus immediately as one does when they are firing a thief?
In the private world, when one is suspected of fraud or crimes, we have security come up and meet the employee and walk them off campus, much like Father Fessio was asked to leave, plain old fired!
No axe to grind, just goes to show that when one is not under the cloak of coverup and has to stand on ones own merits as an instrument of Christ, these so called great modernist theologians seem to be failing miserably. Was he not the Popes right hand man in all of his books?
A. Williams, Thanks for a reasoned and sensible discussion of what is clearly a painful issue for so many. It’s always wise to take a step back instead of engaging in a futile back and forth that keeps repeating the same arguments.
You know, if not for strong overtones of “there’s nothing wrong with them there gay babies that needs a-fixing” wafting from Mark’s criticisms, I’d be considering my first guess a lot more strongly…
Anyone able to trace his IP back to see if it’s coming from random Domnio’s online ordering terminals around the country? š
Am I wrong or was it Fr. Fessio or his agent who fired Dom Bettinelli in a similar fashion when his wife had just had a baby? If I am right, maybe Fr. Fessio could offer Dom a new job.
It is most true that in all places, Catholic institutions should be examples of charity when disputes arise.
“I think it’s somewhat misguided of Fr. Fessio to associate himself with a crackpot Seminary Rector who says that ‘gay’ embryos should be genetically altered …”
You’ve got no business commenting on a subject if you aren’t going to get your facts straight and treat the subject fairly and honestly. Rev. Mohler is not a crackpot seminary rector, he’s a well known and respected evangelical Protestant leader in the U.S. And there’s nothing outrageous about speculating that if homosexuality were the result of faulty genes and those genes could be fixed, then it would be licit to fix those genes so long as no harm comes to the unborn child or the mother.
You have a nice weekend too, Mark.
Oh, and John, you have absolutely no business passing judgment on theologians such as Henri de Lubac. That’s the Catholic Church’s job. Please try not to do things that are vastly beyond your pay scale. De Lubac was a man of the church, and like all good Catholic theologians he submitted his work to the judgment of the church. He made mistakes and was called on it, and he humbly submitted. Would that we could find the same docility coming from you.
Origen made various theological errors too, and some of his propositions and propositions of his disciples were condemned by the Church. But Origen is still a crucially important Father of the Church despite his mistakes. Same with Henri de Lubac. He made mistakes (what theologian doesn’t — even Aquinas botched the Immaculate Conception), but his work is in general regarded as valuable for the Church today. Since the Church hasn’t condemned him and all of his work, it is not permitted that anyone, least of all a schismatic such as yourself, John, to vaunt yourself and presume to condemn him. I would strongly advise you to hie thee to a confessional post haste.
“Was he not the Popes right hand man in all of his books?”
No, he vas not.
“And there’s nothing outrageous about speculating that if homosexuality were the result of faulty genes and those genes could be fixed, then it would be licit to fix those genes so long as no harm comes to the unborn child or the mother.”
I’m very sceptical of the putative genetic basis of homosexuality. Even if, for the sake of argument, I concede that it is genetic, I do not think the germ line DNA should be altered for any reason. Francis S. Collins, Christian and director of the Human Genome Project, makes a very good case for this position. Seldom is a trait coded by only one gene rather than the interaction of a great many, and yet more seldom does a gene or group thereof serve only one function. There’s just no way of knowing the consequences of taking such a drastic measure. And all of this to ablate one sinful temptation that will in all likelyhood just be replaced by another?
Did Fessio really need Monaghan to give him the reasons for his termination? How about:
*Student enrollment falling significantly
*Recent loss of Three Department Chairs
*Other faculty leaving disgusted (Wall Street Journal, “Domino’s Iluminatio Mea”, by Naomi Schaefer Riley, 8/19/06)
*AMU will without accreditation after 4 years of Fessio as Provost
*Board-sponsored study suggested Fessio resign
MENE PERES TEKEL
Do you *know* that those were the reasons Father Fessio was fired? If so, how do you know?
A. Nonymous, I completely agree with you. The whole “if we could find the gene that caused gayness and nothing else” prospect is so *out there* scientifically at the moment that I’m not sure I see the worth of deciding what to do then. On the other hand, I can see the real harm of the discussion legitimizing possibly harmful genetic interference or leading to the idea that we know homosexuality is a matter of one gene, rather than a complex issue with various shades of existence.
I mean, you’d think it should be obvious to people that not everyone who experiences homosexual attraction experiences it on the same level, and that homosexual attraction can coexist with heterosexual attraction in some people, but somehow it isn’t obvious, and the idea of a ‘off and off’ gene makes rather complex biological/psychological situations falsely black and white.
Eileen,
This whole scenario of trying to isolate genes for prenatal manipulation could also easily spiral completely out of control. After getting rid of the Homosexual gene, what about any other bothersome gene!
Knowing the vanity already inherent in most of mankind, I could only speculate that a future with patented prenatal ‘Victoria Secret’ or ‘GQ’ gene alteration packages might be available for sale. Gene cataloges anyone?
The new California lingo might go something like..”Oh yeah! Designer babies are sooo in! Do you know that the new teeth shades are up to 92 bright white! Like really and they’re prehardened too! The only problem is that you can only get them in the Gore Vidal collection, and you know how expensive that is! But it comes with a “No Braces Guaranteed!” warranty. But be careful not to check the Tom Cruise style…yuk!”
Knowing the vanity already inherent in most of mankind, I could only speculate that a future with patented prenatal ‘Victoria Secret’ or ‘GQ’ gene alteration packages might be available for sale. Gene cataloges anyone?
Not a good argument in my mind as we are already there. Plastic surgery can be used for modifications as vain as a nose job or a bust bump but the same surgeons are capable of saving people from severe disfigurement from fires, accidents and nature. The question isn’t what might someone do with a tool but can the tool be used morally.
My obstetrician heard something unusual at my last sonogram: “Doctor, please don’t alter me genetically; I’m not gay, I just like the Teletubbies for the educational content”.
Yes Bill, I “know” that’s why Fessio was fired. I am a fly on the wall in the Pizza man’s office.
Sheeesh. This information is all in the public domain. It’s the information superhighway. You should try it sometime…
If you’re wondering what might be behind Fr. Fessio’s firing, the following link has extensive quotes from court documents, memos, etc.
http://avewatch.org/fessio
G Willikers: In other words, you are speculating. No one at AMU has stated why Father Fessio was fired. Your speculation may be correct, but, unless you truly are a fly on the wall, you can’t know.
I love the Church, but I HATED working for it!
I read it on the internet — it must be true.
Sorry G Willikers, but bill912’s correct on this one. The fact that information is out there which might have prompted some (but certainly not others) to fire Fr. Fessio, provides so little evidence of why Mr. Monaghan actually decided to fire Fr. Fessio to be absolutely useless as evidence of anything.
For my part, I doubt that much of what you offered as the reason played any real part in the decision, but I have neither the evidence nor the desire to try to support my conjecture.
OK Esquire, you got me there. I don’t know what is in Monaghan’s head. But the reasons why Monoghan SHOULD HAVE fired Fessio are well documented:
*Student enrollment falling significantly
*Recent loss of Three Department Chairs
*Other faculty leaving disgusted (Wall Street Journal, “Domino’s Iluminatio Mea”, by Naomi Schaefer Riley, 8/19/06)
*AMU will without accreditation after 4 years of Fessio as Provost
*Board-sponsored study suggested Fessio resign
Sorry that’s:
*AMU STILL without accreditation after 4 years of Fessio as Provost.
Actually, those might be reasons why Monaghan should fire himself. Or at least step back from his projects and stop messing them up.
“I’m very sceptical of the putative genetic basis of homosexuality.”
So am I. For my money, any role that genes might play in homosexuality is about the same role that genes play in a person’s emotional makeup or temperament.
“Even if, for the sake of argument, I concede that it is genetic, I do not think the germ line DNA should be altered for any reason. Francis S. Collins, Christian and director of the Human Genome Project, makes a very good case for this position. Seldom is a trait coded by only one gene rather than the interaction of a great many, and yet more seldom does a gene or group thereof serve only one function.”
Yes, I doubt you could ever come up with a genetic therapy that wouldn’t create a cascade of collateral genetic problems.
“There’s just no way of knowing the consequences of taking such a drastic measure. And all of this to ablate one sinful temptation that will in all likelihood just be replaced by another?”
Could agree more. The whole question is an exercise in “what if.” And as far as I know, Fr. Fessio didn’t intend his comments in any other way.
“Actually, those might be reasons why Monaghan should fire himself. Or at least step back from his projects and stop messing them up.”
Quite so. It’s probably not fair to blame Fr. Fessio for AMU’s problems, since his position as Provost is toothless. The real power is apparently in the hands of Monaghan and Healy.
Whether they realize it or not, the students at Ave Maria received the best lesson of their entire college career. And that is that they got to see, first hand, the abusive Realpolitik of the Catholic hierarchy. Had Fr. Fessio been abusing one of his students, he surely would have been shuffled off to a local parish with the full support of his bishop. But, being a dedicated scholar, perhaps misplaced in an administrative job, he is canned with a disregard that would make an Enron executive blush.
The only honest thing left to do is to rename the school “John Calvin University” and teach these dear ones that the Holy Spirit is indeed powerful enough to lead them to Christ. And, who knows, the road He chooses may not even go through Rome.
No Catholic Hierarchy here, Constantine. Monaghan and Healey are both laymen. There aren’t, to the best of my knowledge, any bishops involved.
Spin again!
Why would any Catholic want to name a school after a heretic?
Pope Benedict XVII posted:
“Was he not the Popes right hand man in all of his books?”
No, he vas not.””
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400970.html
Pope B XVII, I think you need some correction
The Washington post reported:
Last week, Monaghan caused consternation even among ardent supporters by summarily firing, then quickly rehiring, a renowned Jesuit priest who is a friend, former student and English-language publisher of Pope Benedict XVI.
Wow…the comments sure did spiral out of control on this one.
I think that it is TM and Healy who should go. Fessio has been a figurehead and PR guy for these two clowns. If Fessio were really running the place, I think it would take off like a rocket. It’s sad TM’s psychology apparently makes him such a control freak.
John,
I don’t think “English-language publisher of Pope Benedict XVI” is the same as “the Popes right hand man in all of his books”.
Just curious John. You’ve made it clear you are not in communion with the Holy Father and the Catholic Church; why do you participate in this Catholic blog?
Am I to understand that you are in possession of the fullness of the faith and yet you do not have a faith community which shares your beliefs. Is the true Church really a community of one? In other words, why don’t you establish a blog of likeminded individuals since you are “out of communion” with the Catholic Church?
You are like the atheist who still goes to Church!
Just curious John. You’ve made it clear you are not in communion with the Holy Father and the Catholic Church; why do you participate in this Catholic blog?
Am I to understand that you are in possession of the fullness of the faith and yet you do not have a faith community which shares your beliefs. Is the true Church really a community of one? In other words, why don’t you establish a blog of likeminded individuals since you are “out of communion” with the Catholic Church?
You are like the atheist who still goes to Church!
A-MEN to that, brutha!
That’s one thing Mark said that I actually agree with!
In academia, when an official or teacher is fired and told to vacate the premises the same day, it’s because they broke the law or did something like commit a sexual offense with a student.
Not so, especially in T$M’s world. Or does not anyone recall the immediate departure of the AMC employee, who has subsequently had her wrongful termination suit against the College reinstated by the Michigan Court of Appeals.
On a side note, has *ANYONE* fould any legitimacy at all in this “Catholic Education Hall of Fame”? Thre is no record of it, anywhere. Sounds to me another fabrication from the folks at Avemariaville.
Esau,
I’m sure we agree on a lot more than that. I just find Fr. Fessio’s vow of obedience somewhat at odds with his actions regarding his firing (obedience is not just juridical, it is a spirituality). He should have simply left when he was asked to go. There was able justification for him being asked to resign as G. Willikers has noted above.
Also, I find the student “revolt” to have been, well, revolting. Anti-establishment is a right of passage on most college campuses but it is not in keeping with the mission or spirit of Ave Maria.
I find the notion that students should not speak up (or be allowed to speak up) when a popular member of the administration has been apparently treated unjustly (I say apparently because it seems to have been apparent to the students) to be revolting and downright un-Catholic.
I also find it downright un-Catholic to suggest that Fr. Fessio was being “spiritually disobedient” when he failed to resign upon request. Traditional Catholic teaching also requires Fr. Fessio to take reasonable measures to protect his good reputation (compare the lives and writings of St. Francis de Sales, Intro to Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 7, and St. Thomas More, among many others). Assuming that he believes that there was no justification for the request, there is nothing “disobedient” in not making it easier for the school to get rid of him.
As for G Willikers’ list that supposedly justifies the firing, I can only offer my observations from a distance, as I know nothing about the particulars. I find no convincing evidence as yet, however, to suggest that any (much less all) of the enumerated items on the list should properly be attributed to Fr. Fessio, much less that they actually were.
“Also, I find the student “revolt” to have been, well, revolting. Anti-establishment is a right of passage on most college campuses but it is not in keeping with the mission or spirit of Ave Maria.”
And the mission and spirit of Ave Maria is to follow the golden rule. He who has the gold, makes the rules. If that is Tom’s gameplan, that is his choice. However, as a professor, I won’t teach for him under those rules. In addition, as a committed Catholic, I will not support his venture with my own dollars. If he wants to play by those rules, let him pay for it.
Is the AMU Healy related to the Healy who was president of Georgetown?
Esquire says,
“I find the notion that students should not speak up (or be allowed to speak up) when a popular member of the administration has been apparently treated unjustly (I say apparently because it seems to have been apparent to the students) to be revolting and downright un-Catholic.”
If Fessio had RESIGNED when he was asked to, Monaghan would not have had to FIRE him. It would have been no different than Gerry Faust resigning at the end of an unproductive tenure as the Coach of Notre Dame. Fessio forced the administration to fire him.
Furthermore, if Fessio had not made an emotional appeal to students after he was fired, “they didn’t give me a reason”, “where will I sleep”, then perhaps there would not have been a “revolt”.
Instead, the student received a lesson in Jane Fonda 101: “Resist Authority”.
*Student enrollment falling significantly
*Recent loss of Three Department Chairs
*Other faculty leaving disgusted (Wall Street Journal, “Domino’s Iluminatio Mea”, by Naomi Schaefer Riley, 8/19/06)
*AMU will without accreditation after 4 years of Fessio as Provost
*Board-sponsored study suggested Fessio resign.
Come on. Monaghan and Healey have managed to shepard AMSL from being a top tier law school to being in danger of losing its accreditation. Surely they are not blameless in the difficulties at AMU. Fessio seems more like a scapegoat for the real problem.
Mark,
My response assumed that Fessio believed the request was unjustly made. It also assumes that Monaghan believed he was acting justly when he made the decision that Fessio had to go. In that situation, it is a distortion of the truth to state that Fessio “forced” the administrtation to fire him.
As for inspiring the masses, there is absolutely nothing wrong with “they haven’t given me a reason” (assuming, of course, that they hadn’t). I missed Fessio’s “where will I sleep” comment. Can you provide a link for me?
And not all student protests are equal. Some are good, some are bad. (Maybe you spent a little too much time protesting during your classes on Catholic Social Ethics and/or Logic.)
Michael,
If Fessio were being made the scapegoat for all of the problems at AMU, then why didn’t Monaghan take the opportunity of the firing to site the University’s poor performance and connect them to the Provost.
Many of these issues are, after all, faculty and student morale issue. Does the Provost get a pass on these? I guess if he’s the “darling of conservatives” he does! Let’s face it, maybe he was just the wrong man for that particular job.
Sorry, I meant “cite”.
JA. When are you going to add an editing function to this SITE!
An editing function would be horrific. People would go back and change their posts and then go “Nope. Didn’t say that.” It’d be ten times the current furor all the time.
If Fessio were being made the scapegoat for all of the problems at AMU, then why didn’t Monaghan take the opportunity of the firing to site the University’s poor performance and connect them to the Provost.
To do so explicitly would be slander.
However, to do so implicitly would not be since it would be the public who would be drawing the conclusions.
Yet, folks are more clever than that, especially when it comes to somebody as well-respected as Fessio!
It would not be unlike the president letting somebody go from his administration (be it a resignation or a firing) in order to impute a catastrophic event solely to that individual.
To make it clear, I did not say that Fr. Fessio was being made a scapegoat for all of AMU’s problems. We really don’t know why he was fired. But in any event, there are many reasons (unknown to the general public) why one person might be fired and another (even more culpable) person is not.
Refusing to speculate about the reasons why a good man might have been fired does not equate to giving anyone a pass. It involves the Christian virtue of prudence, and it has been recommended by the Church for centuries.
Esquire says,
“Refusing to speculate about the reasons why a good man might have been fired does not equate to giving anyone a pass. It involves the Christian virtue of prudence, and it has been recommended by the Church for centuries.”
But apparently, Mr. Monaghan, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and years of his life on Catholic causes including pro-life and Catholic education does not get this same charity …
Mark says:
But apparently, Mr. Monaghan, who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and years of his life on Catholic causes including pro-life and Catholic education does not get this same charity …
I hate to say it, but that seems like a rather fair statement.
Actually, he does (at least by those not speculating on the cause of the firings).
Just how many Catholic millionaires out there would and have actually tried to accomplish something of this magnitude for the Catholics and the Catholic Faith?
Most Catholic millionaires I’m aware of are more interested in more worldly pursuits than attempting this kind of endeavor.
Show me an instance where I have been uncharitable to Mr. Monaghan and I will speedily retract it, with an apology.
Not you, Esquire.
I’m talking about other people who’ve said as much.
“I just find Fr. Fessio’s vow of obedience somewhat at odds with his actions regarding his firing (obedience is not just juridical, it is a spirituality). He should have simply left when he was asked to go.”
Not necessarily, Mark.
We don’t really know the details yet. Fr. Fessio really was in a sort of salesperson role. And if He ‘sold’ AMU to his many followers as ‘one thing’, ie. as a patently ‘traditional’ institution, which all who know Fr. Fessio could figure was the case, and then Mr. Monaghan decides to alter that ‘vision’, to something LESS than ‘traditional’, then Fr. Fessio has all the right to resist…if not even the DUTY!
This happens alot in business and usually with corporate sales! Often a business will hire a salesperson who will receive a commission for every client he brings in. And everything goes smoothly until sometime in the future the owners of the business want to save some money and decide that the clients are sufficient enough, whereby they no longer need the salesman. Furthermore, the salesman loses all of his commissions from the continuing sales.
And what happens?? ‘Business being business’..the salesman wisely contacts some of the competitors of this same company and asks them…are you interested in about 50 great clients??
And then He contacts all of his accounts and reveals the nasty thing his boss is doing to him, and they are actually human,and understanding.. and so decide to follow him to what ever company he ends up with!!
This is the power of Charisma and humanity in the world of business!
And some people really think that money runs everything!
And so, now Monaghan knows how faithful the friends of Fr.Fessio really are! Heck, without Fr.Fessio, this who project probably wouldn’t have even been able to start in the first place!
Now, if Fr.Fessio is blamed for not bringing more of his friends to the University than Tom would have liked, He might have an arguement. However, Fr. Fessio can only do what he can..and there is a real market out there that not even he can control!
I think they both should have been content with whatever happened, and accepted the Divine Providence of God!
Maybe if the school only attracted a few hundred students, they could live with it, and find profits from the Ave Maria town that they’re building…
and then accept what the Lord gives them, in lines of ‘students’, as the market dictates in the future?
Maybe a little humility and faith were in order for all of them! It is, after all, a CATHOLIC PROJECT, which implies that some FAITH, HOPE and CHARITY would need to be relied on.
Best of luck to all!.. and I hope the original vision of a holy city and university can continue to grow, so that the Holy Faith will be ever more present to our modern, semi-pagan World!
“But apparently, Mr. Monaghan…does not get this same charity…”
Since that post was in response to Esquire, I presume that the above was directed at him. I just scanned Esquire’s posts again; I find none where he does not give Monaghan the same benefit of the doubt that he gives Father Fessio. In his 12:28 post, Esquire specifically states that he presumes that Monaghan truly believes that he was just in firing Father Fessio.
Consider these words:
False Right
Just like Lefebvrists, false right, trying to take the good in the Church who are shocked by these the progresivist things in the Church, and make them go into a abyss.
All while following orders.
Because nothing like that happends without “permission”.
More like orders.
Not to go off topic, but since Mark and Esau took the time to do so to do so at my expense, as St Paul teaches, “where there is a proximate danger to the Faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by their subjects”, Mark and then Esau posted:
“Just curious John. You’ve made it clear you are not in communion with the Holy Father and the Catholic Church; why do you participate in this Catholic blog?
Am I to understand that you are in possession of the fullness of the faith and yet you do not have a faith community which shares your beliefs. Is the true Church really a community of one? In other words, why don’t you establish a blog of likeminded individuals since you are “out of communion” with the Catholic Church?
You are like the atheist who still goes to Church!
A-MEN to that, brutha!”
Mark-then if that is what you feel about me, and you do not know me, what do you feel about the Pope himself, in the name of Ecumenism who does the following:
As Pope John Paul II:
1.On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mass of people undulating to the rhythm of tomtoms, accompanied by accordians and guitars.
2.In February 1982, he presided over a “dance” Mass in Libreville.
3.On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.
4.On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mass in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.
5.In September 1984, he presided over a Mass in Canada at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood.
6.In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: “We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God.”
7.In August 1985, he presided over “dance” Masses in Cameroon and Garoua.
8.On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a “Sacred Forest” consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.
9.In 1986, he presided over a Mass in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.
10.In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the “Tilac,” the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
11.On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome and prayed for the coming of the Messias.
12.On October 27, 1986, he participated in an ecumenical prayer meeting at Assisi, Italy, during which an image of Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle. He again brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders in Assisi on January 9-10, 1993, to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians, and on January 24, 2002, for yet another “ecumenical prayer meeting” for “peace” with the Mohammedan terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of “Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions.” (Associated Press)
13.On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.
14.In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the altar during a beatification ceremony in Australia.
Sorry gentlmen, one cant have it both ways. Either one is a heretic for following traditional catholic teachings or a Pope is such for participating in far worse, even pagan idol worship
The contradiction is clear. When the “reformation” of 1962 took place, Paul VI and JPII and all for that matter never anticipated a few brave souls would stand up for the faith.
That’s odd — I could’ve sworn the TITLE of this thread was: Fr. Fessio Re-Hired
NOT:
“Why John Paul II is an Apostate”
by none other than John & the Rad Trads who SPITS on the TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of the Church as well as on Christ Himself & ATTACKS His Church with such venom!
When the “reformation” of 1962 took place, Paul VI and JPII and all for that matter never anticipated a few brave souls would stand up for the faith.
What ‘FAITH’ is that exactly?
While I have the Communion of Saints & Martyrs on my side that testify all throughout history to the AUTHORITY of the Pope as given him by Jesus to St. Peter & his Successors, the only ones you have on your side is Martin Luther, Judas Iscariot, and Lucifer himself!
Nice party to be around, I guess, if dissension and betrayal against Christ is what you’re all about!
Of course, your and your Rad Trads’ actions speak for themselves!
Esau, the problem was that no one else on this thread had yet stated what must always be stated, regardless of the topic:
1) Vatican II–BAD!
2) Everything since Vatican II–BAD!
3) Paul VI–BAD!
4) John Paul II–VERY BAD!
Ever notice how no one picks on John Paul I?
Maybe I should post every other post on how bad John Paul I was!
:-p
Humm. Obviously Jimmy is away.
SOME OF THIS IS LIKE A KIDS CLASSROOM WITH THE TEACHER AWAY…AND ON THE SAME LEVEL.
Yes — and I suppose what John mentioned above regarding Pope John Paul II is to your liking!
Oh yeah, John should’ve added more to his List “Why John Paul II is an Apostate”:
15. John Paul II danced on a row of Cabbage Patch Kids dolls and said the Jimmy Akin Personality Cult pledge.
16. He waved a Karate Kid II rattle back and forth in order to summon Godzilla in Tokyo.
17. JP II did the Macarena at Paul VI hall on Halloween.
18. John Paul II put on Bono’s sunglasses and started singing “In the Name of Love” when U2 visited the Vatican.
I was just wandering which was going to be more popular, Fr. Fessio or the Motu Propio!?
And now that Fr. Fessio has been liberated from his cocoon… by Pope JPII and his heresies, I really think that maybe Fessio has a real chance of smashing the Motu Propio combox totals!! whoohooo!
But Juuust to make sure…Can any one answer just one simple question??
Just why was JPII a heretic anyway? Exactly!
Oh, and we only have 125 comments to go…so let’s try to hurry!
…Maybe JRStoodley… or his identical twin brother…. would like to start first? : )
Esau posted:
“That’s odd — I could’ve sworn the TITLE of this thread was: Fr. Fessio Re-Hired
NOT:
“Why John Paul II is an Apostate”
Gee Esau, I guess it did not stop you from chiming in with Mark to go “off thread” and slander me personally!!
You are such a hypocrite and wolf in sheeps clothing
Please respond to the evidence-If John Paul could worship vodoo and with Hindus-Is he or is he not a heretic and worse than any SSPX churchgoer you are so quick to call a heretic?
I wait for your reply, but I expect not, just another 4 posts in response to my 1 full of blabber!
italics off
John,
If you’re done slinging mud (and hijacking this thread)you may wish to consider:
Ignatius of Antioch in 107, who wrote: “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
You are out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. So go start your own blog …
Jimmy’s next post should be about how John Paul II has been (falsely) accused of being a heretic so that the thread can be hijacked to some other topic, for a change of pace….This is all too much like that Rodney Dangefield joke: “I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out.” Prizes to the best adaptations of Rodney’s joke. Any takers? I’m too tired to be witty….
Well, since all threads seem to end up on the same topic, regardless…
Iād like to ask the panel what they would do if they were Hitler?
Well, the possibilities are endless. But I think I would declare World John Day, in honor of John jtnova (pay no attention to the email address behind the curtain) and his astute observation that the Bishop of Rome has no moral authority and simply cannot be trusted.
Simultaneously, I would honor John D. Crossan by minting gold coins stamped with his image and hiring Realist to be the pointman of my public relations team. He could hand them out to the masses, all the while convincing them of the truth of John Crossan’s “gospel,” that Jesus Christ was not God, could not have done anything that his apologists claim he did, and that they have nothing to fear.
Once I had those more important matters out of the way, I would proceed with bulldozing Europe and exterminating the Jews.
Amen, Kevin. And to think I logged on for a little intellectual stimulation after teaching first grade all day. Goodnight and God Bless.
I suggest that a certain Hobby Horse rider, who hijacks nearly every thread, and who repeats the same bilge (and nothing else) over and over, be banished to the Phantom Zone.
Mark and I may strongly disagree about Fessio, but one thing unites the both of us — loyalty to Christ & His Church!
Okay, now that is done —
I forget what was the last thing said about the ‘Fessio’ topic since John nailed his ‘Martin Luther’ equivalent of the 95 Thesis (except his was 14).
John,
Since falsity is one of the basic elements of slander, I don’t think you can honestly say that Esau “slandered” you.
And since the shoe appears to fit, I think we must acquit. (Esau, that is.)
Esquire,
You’re TOO kind to me, brutha!
God bless you!
P.S. Okay, since you defended me here on the blog, how much do I owe you for attorney fees? ;^) j/k
Esau,
You know what they say, if you have to ask, you probably can’t afford it. š
Esquire:
Thanks for the Pro Bono, then! ;^)
And, hey, keep posting!
I thought it was JPII that was Pro Bono!
:-p
(I just happen to be listening to Where the Streets Have No Name at this exact moment.
Coincidence?
Dr. Eric:
Thanks for that!
That was the most amusing post today!
Incidentally, on the radio I just heard The Edge was going to sell his most cherished guitar for charity!
Hey, thinking about giving somebody something special for Easter?
“I wonder how much of this is financial! I and others I know who are considered “founders” (just means you let them take money monthly out fo your checking ccount!)immediately emailed AMU that we were ending our support specifically due to the firing.”
Speaking as someone with some first hand knowledge, I think that had a lot to do with it.
Also: The prospect of losing many returning or new students, which was a near certainty. That means tuition (money) as well.
To Mark,
“Reportedly, Fr. Fessio was asked to resign. He refused. Not only did he refuse a dignified exit, he apparently called students “weeping” and created a soap opera. So much for Jesuits and obedience …”
That’s the story I have heard – in regards to his refusal.
It might have helped if Monaghan had offered an explanation – which he still has yet to do to Fessio, by the way. It’s also unclear just exactly how the demand was posed. But it sounded like he wanted him to leave immediately, which is out of the norm for replacing provosts.
But Monaghan has made at least one public speech this week admitting that he handled the whole episode poorly.
zillow Monaghan’s home at home at:
10047 Gulf Shore Dr, Naples, FL 34108.
He can’t claim to be broke.
What’s with posting Monaghan’s address?
Are we really stooping to that level now?
JIMMY AKIN,
Please remove the above info!
What is wrong with publishing public information?
I didn’t know it was public information.
The address of a person is so personal (as it can endanger the person and even his/her family if in the wrong hands), that I wouldn’t want mine to be posted.
Real estate transactions are matters of public record. Tom Monaghan might not like that we can go to the Collier County government website and find out his address and how much he paid for his house. But it is all right there and fair game for the public.
That’s a similar argument identity theives can use, wouldn’t you say?
“That’s a similar argument identity theives can use, wouldn’t you say?”
Actually no, because I am not advocating that anyone do anything illegal. People use this data for many purposes such as selling mortgage insurance and nobody ever questions them. Tom M. is trying to portray himself as a Saint Francis who is giving everything away. However, according to the zillow website, his home is worth $4.4 million? It kind of reduces the credibility of his argument in my opinion.
jt82,
As far as I know, Mr. Monaghan hasn’t claimed to be broke or St. Francis. His charitable contributions, on the other hand, are a matter of public record and are in the hundreds of millions.
Contrast that to one Albert Gore who, in the year of his vice-presidential run, gave $500 dollars to charity. Liberals, of course, “care” more, so I’m sure he lost at least 500 mls from his bleeding heart …
Mr. Monaghan is a private citizen, and not a vowed religious; he’s entitled to his earnings. If you checkout a google satellite of his address you don’t see anything too pretentious …
http://www.google.com/maps?q=Gulf+Shore+Blvd+N,+Naples,+Florida,+USA&sa=X&oi=map&ct=title
I’ll never live in a house like that but, heck, I didn’t start Domino’s pizza either …
jt82:
Would you rather that Monaghan do with his wealth as others have done and pursue more worldly interests?
The fact that he actually does something to help build the Catholic Church, in a matter of speaking, of course, is, in itself, admirable.
Although, I strongly disagree with how the Fessio matter worked out, I still can’t condemn the guy merely due to hearsay and what not.
What I know about him is that he’s attempting to do with his money something that actually promotes the Catholic Faith, which is more than what I can say for most Catholic millionaires and other such Catholic ‘aristocrats’.
It seems you’d more likely praise him if he did something else with his money such as fund more selfish endeavors than that which actually promote Catholicism.
Jimmy, I agree with Esau. Please delete Monaghan’s home address.
“Would you rather that Monaghan do with his wealth as others have done and pursue more worldly interests?”
That is actually a good question. The problem I have is that it seems that a lot of what he does is tainted with his own pride. Is the Church better off with Ave Maria University? I think that is a debatable question, because while it is nice to have a new university, several existing catholic colleges have closed. Perhaps he should have supported one of those and left academia to the academics? I might be wrong here, but it is by no means clear that what he is doing is good or desirable.
I think that is a debatable question, because while it is nice to have a new university, several existing catholic colleges have closed. Perhaps he should have supported one of those and left academia to the academics?
If you mean his actually supporting one of the many so-called “Catholic” universities in America that, in place of authentic Catholic Teaching, have rather deigned to cater to the demands of the secular masses instead; then, yes, I would prefer that he use his money to create a Catholic Univerisity de novo that would actually be “Catholic” both in name and in practice, which I believe was his original intention with Ave Maria.
Though, I really don’t know where it is at this point. The Fessio event really wasn’t one of the things I wanted (at all), but, hey, I don’t know the full story.
$250 million in the hands of someone who knows how to run a university would be awesome. Its not like there aren’t any truly catholic colleges out there.
$250 million in the hands of someone who knows how to run a university would be awesome.
That’s just it — there’s not a lack of well-run “Catholic” universities; there is, however, a lack of actually Catholic Universitites!
CORRIGENDUM:
That’s just it — there’s not a lack of well-run “Catholic” universities; there is, however, a lack of actually Catholic Universities!
What about:
Assumption College
Christendom College
College of Saint Thomas More
Corpus Christi College
Franciscan University of Steubenville
Magdalen College
Our Lady of Corpus Christi
Thomas Aquinas College
Are these not authentically catholic colleges?
That would seem to be contingent upon one’s own definition of “Catholic”.
As Bishop Sheen said, in todays Catholic schools, one is better not even going to such because they just are not Catholic anymore. In todays Spirit Daily, Canadian Catholic schools infiltrated by Homosexuals and in New England schools closing left and right
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07032803.html
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/headlines/ci_5544788
Dioceses ‘suffering’
Catholic students decline
By Nicole Sequino, Berkshire Eagle Staff
Thursday, March 29
SPRINGFIELD ā The future of Catholic schools, which have been losing students over the past decade, will depend on marketing, fundraising, academic and faith-based initiatives, New England Catholic leaders said yesterday.
Bishops, clergy and Catholic educators gathered at the Marriott Hotel to discuss ways to sustain schools in their dioceses, which have closed 47 schools and lost 21,813 students in New England since 1997. Likewise, the Springfield diocese has 8 fewer schools and 3,945 fewer students in the four counties of Western Massachusetts.
Clergy and educators said population shifts and competition from public and charter schools are two main reasons for the loss of students.
“Dioceses are suffering from having our schools in areas where the population no longer supports them,” said the Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, indicating that school mergers are possible solutions in some cases.
While one must be careful in choosing a Catholic school to go to, IMHO it can hardly be said that Ave Maria is the only authentically Catholic school in the US.
IMHO it can hardly be said that Ave Maria is the only authentically Catholic school in the US.
jt82,
That wasn’t the conclusion I was leading to; I was merely addressing your original comment regarding:
$250 million in the hands of someone who knows how to run a university would be awesome.
The reason why I, myself, had actually felt optimistic about Ave Maria was because of Fessio’s association with the school (granted, that’s a fallacy in itself).
Apparantly most of the poster have never worked for the very arrogant Fr. Fessio.
‘Nuff said.
“‘Nuff said.”
Correct. You said exactly nothing.