Bishop Niederauer to be San Francisco Archbishop - Page 2

Confiteor · #16 Dec 18, '05, 11:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Kelley

Archbishop Niederauer's history

On April 30, 1962, he was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
From 1972-1994, he served as spiritual director at St. John's Seminary in Camarillo. During those years he was also an instructor in Spiritual Theology.

From 1987-1992, he served as rector of the seminary.

From 1992-1994, he co-directed the Cardinal Manning House of Prayer for priests in Los Angeles.

He was appointed eighth Bishop of Salt Lake City on November 3, 1994.

Half of his life as a priest [2/3 of the time before he became bishop] was involved with running the Seminary. Many of the priests involved in our recent 1/2 Billion Dollar payout, and LA's pending Billion Dollar payout, were trained there during that time One presumes that his efforts there were an important factor in determining his qualifications for higher responsibilities.

Sounds like he is at least partly accountable for the incidence of abuse in LA and his statements about gays being suitable candidates for the priesthood are in conflict with the Vatican instruction. I don't doubt he has lots of good qualities, but this part seems at odds with the Church...

Jerusha · #17 Dec 18, '05, 12:10 pm

It seems to me that the change in assignment would be good for him, and good for LA. He may become more conservative on the gay issue in LA-- just possibly. The culture of Utah could be very stressful.

TheRaiders · #18 Dec 18, '05, 1:19 pm

Jerusha, The Bishop is not going to LA, thats where he was before he became bishop of Salt Lake City.
What do you mean th eculture in Utah is stressful? The culture in San Fransico likely will be more so, unless he supports drug use, new age atheists, gays, transgenders, and rich people who think they are too good for God.
That said, there are a lot of God's children, good one's or bad one's in San Francisco. The decision is not a democracy. He will be Archbishop of San Francisco. So we can only write him letters of encouragement, and pray that he is able to work miracles in San Francisco. If he is to blame for the problems in LA, which aren't that bad compared to whats going on all over our messed up world, then God help him. For now, he'll be your king. That's right. King. Thats basically what an Archbishop is over his diocese, whether you like it or not. Serve him well, and maybe you can help him with his stance on gays. Maybe once he sees the destruction that lifestyle causes to San Francisco, and the Castro district, he'll come to a more compassionate stance: condemn homosexuality and try to help people away from it for their eternal soul is at stake.

Jennifer123 · #19 Dec 18, '05, 1:42 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusha

It seems to me that the change in assignment would be good for him, and good for LA. He may become more conservative on the gay issue in LA-- just possibly. The culture of Utah could be very stressful.

To me, the problem is he's now the head of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, a place in desperate need for correct teaching and pastoral care of homosexuality.

John Higgins · #20 Dec 18, '05, 3:37 pm

The Holy Father is not in a vacuum. Face it, he made this assignment on purpose.

I am consistently surprised by those who thought that Pope Benedict would be some Bavarian Avenger.

John

GloriaPatri4 · #21 Dec 18, '05, 3:54 pm

Just out of curiosity:

Does anyone know how consecrators and co-consecrators get picked? Is it based on what region a bishop is ordained in or in this case is it because all these bishops went to the same seminary (St. John's in Camarillo)? And I have heard that Mahoney, Brown and Levada are pretty good friends is Neiderauer a good friend of theirs too?

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bnied.html

Archbishop George Hugh Niederauer

Archbishop of San Francisco

Events

DateAgeEventTitle14 Jun 193669.5169.5 BornLos Angeles30 Apr 196225.9Ordained PriestPriest of Los Angeles, California, USA 3 Nov 199458.4AppointedBishop of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 25 Jan 199558.6Ordained BishopBishop of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 15 Dec 200569.5AppointedArchbishop of San Francisco, California, USA 15 Feb 200669.7InstalledArchbishop of San Francisco, California, USA

Please contact the Archbishop through the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

a priest for 43.6443.6 years
a bishop for 10.9010.9 years

Principal Consecrator:
- Roger Michael Cardinal Mahony
Principal Co-Consecrators:
- Archbishop William Joseph Levada
- Bishop Tod David Brown

PreVatII · #22 Dec 18, '05, 3:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Higgins

"The fellow" has been selected by the Holy Father and Archbishop Levada to head the Church in San Francisco. He'll be fine. I'm sure he's the right prelate for the right time. The Pope didn't just go through the deck of bishop cards and pick one!

Goodness!

John

John,
How soon we forget. The late John Paul "The Great?" picked a host of terrible bishops. Let's hope our new Holy Father has better insight!

UtahMaggie · #23 Dec 19, '05, 7:44 am

Last year Bishop Niederauer wrote a book called "Precious as Silver, Imagining your life with God". I just bought a copy but haven't had time to start reading it. You may want to buy a copy and see if it answers any of your questions about him. But I hope all will give him a chance.

Merry Christmas,
Maggie

Catholic29 · #24 Dec 19, '05, 7:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennifer123

To me, the problem is he's now the head of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, a place in desperate need for correct teaching and pastoral care of homosexuality.

Not so certain on this, read on http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable

UtahMaggie · #25 Dec 19, '05, 8:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by oat soda

this guy also opposed a ban on same sex unions. i thought the vatican issued a letter specifically addressing this issue and clearly stated that under no circumstance may we as catholics support any type of offical gay unions. but it seems that levada and this guy somehow support them.

it is like the vatican says one thing, and the bishops appointed by the vatican say another? i'm confused and don't know what is right from wrong with these conflicting messeges sent by the church.

Actually, Bishop Niederauer opposed a Utah constitutional amendment stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said there was no need because homosexual marriage was already illegal.

Jerusha · #26 Dec 19, '05, 8:07 am

Time will tell.

Yes, it will be stressfull, but a different kind of stress, one he may be better equipped to handle.

DreadVandal · #27 Dec 19, '05, 8:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahMaggie

Actually, Bishop Niederauer opposed a Utah constitutional amendment stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said there was no need because homosexual marriage was already illegal.

How convenient. Another lukewarm prelate

You know all this talk about him being nice and sweet and all reminds me of something an episcopal priest I knew said about Bishop John Spong (of the Episcopal Church):

I know Jack! I went to seminary with Jack! People say he's a heretic but, you should see how good he is with the children!"

UtahMaggie · #28 Dec 19, '05, 8:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadVandal

How convenient. Another lukewarm prelate

You know all this talk about him being nice and sweet and all reminds me of something an episcopal priest I knew said about Bishop John Spong (of the Episcopal Church):

I know Jack! I went to seminary with Jack! People say he's a heretic but, you should see how good he is with the children!"

Um, I don't understand either comment. And I looked through the posts in this thread and don't see anyone calling him "nice" and "sweet".

And I don't understand the lukewarm comment either. Care to elaborate?

Confiteor · #29 Dec 19, '05, 8:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholic29

Not so certain on this, read on http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable

From the reference above:
"he was troubled that the amendment banned any union beside marriage."
You have to question what other sorts of unions (apart from marriage) that he would want approved. Doesn't the Church oppose same sex unions as a detriment to the family? What else is there that was under consideration in Utah? (Poligamy is long gone, right?)

DreadVandal · #30 Dec 19, '05, 8:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahMaggie

Um, I don't understand either comment. And I looked through the posts in this thread and don't see anyone calling him "nice" and "sweet".

And I don't understand the lukewarm comment either. Care to elaborate?

You mentioned that he was a very holy and wonderful Bishop. Given his lack of zeal for orthodoxy and, what seems to be, his tacit approval of homosexuality, I can only interpret that to mean he is a good preacher, says wonderful things, etc. Many of the things that people say about Robert Schuller, Norman Vincent Peale, and other reverend wonderful's who say wonderful and marvelous things about love and the like; but who have no backbone and do not stand up for orthodoxy.