The Catholic Brand, the Real Gospel
Feb 28, 2011
David Mills
No one would criticize the Yves St. Laurent company for dismissing a part-time salesman who was also managing a store selling inferior clothes called Yves St. Laurence, or the Tommy Hilfiger company for letting go a junior executive who also ran a knock-off clothing company named after a Tommy Hilfinger. Everyone would understand their desire to protect their name and brand.
It’s the prudent thing to do, especially if you think you offer the world something worth protecting. People understand this when looking at ephemeral and trivial items like fashionable clothing, yet many people will not grant the Catholic Church the same ability to protect its name and define its brand. They take to themselves the authority to say what is and is not Catholic.
Last Thursday an annoyed columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News complained that Chestnut Hill College, a small Catholic college in the suburbs run by the Sisters of St. Joseph, had let go an adjunct religion professor who served as a pastor in the Old Catholic Apostolic Church of America. James St. George was, she wrote, a great teacher, loved by students, so why would the college fire him? The Philadephia Daily News ran a news story yesterday indirectly suggesting (by giving the last six paragraphs of the article to his supporters, for one thing) the same point.
On Friday, the latter reported, “the college issued a statement accusing him not only of being gay, which it called contrary to traditional Catholic doctrine, but also of misrepresenting before he was hired that he was a member of an independent branch of Catholicism.” (That “which it called” is another of the indirect suggestions.)
The college seems to have acted in response to an e-mailed complaint from a local lawyer, who pointed out that “Having someone like Jim St. George teach theology at a Catholic college perpetrates a fraud on parents who send their daughters and sons to Chestnut Hill for a Catholic education.” He sent it to Cardinal Rigali as well as officials at the college and the Daily News’ columnist.
St. George says that he told the college about his church but not his sexual behavior when he was first interviewed, though he did not try to hide it. In an official statement, the college’s president says he didn’t tell them about his church and that they didn’t know about his homosexuality.
St. George’s group is one of those many little groups that splinter or flake off large bodies like the Catholic Church, keeping some of the substance and many of the trappings—its seminary is called “Immaculate Conception”—but making adjustments to the difficult parts, almost invariably the moral teachings. This one has just seven parishes, though it features one archbishop, two bishops, one monsignor, two “very reverends,” and two plain “reverend fathers,” some of whom in addition to St. George have “partners.”
It does not seem to be part of the mainline Old Catholic movement. (“Old Catholicism was born not in Alexandria, Constantinople, or Rome, but out of ancient churches of Caesarea, Glastonbury, and Utrecht,” according to the “vision statement” on the group’s website.)
The group’s website as well as those of its churches feature words like “acceptance” and “inclusion.” St. Miriam’s describes itself as “a vibrant, dynamic, multicultural and inclusive community,” and I am fairly sure the governing term in that list is “inclusive,” the inclusivity touted primarily of the sexual variety.
There’s really no doubt that St. George is hostile to the Catholic Church and promotes a competitor. “I often say that the Roman Catholic Church is so bent on rules that they’ve forgotten about the grace and the love of God,” he told the Philadelphia Gay News in an interview run last February. (Did no one at the college know about this interview?) “When you come in to the church, right there on the bulletin board is a statement that basically reads, ‘If you are gay or lesbian, transgender, divorced, non-Catholic . . . etc, you are welcome here.’ There’s a whole list; pretty much anyone who would be rejected by the traditional Roman Catholic Church.”
A running banner on St. George’s church’s home page reads “Come and Experience Saint Miriam and see what being Catholic is really all about!” What it’s really about, you are supposed is realize, is not what the Catholic Church is about—it’s more about what the Catholic Church is not about.
One hopes the college is telling the truth in claiming that they did not know about St. George’s membership in the Old Catholic Apostolic Church of America and his sexual choices, though if they are, at the very least they did not do their due diligence, as lawyers put it. These, and especially the first, are hard things to miss.
Someone ought to have asked him of what diocese was he a priest and at which parish he served. It’s one of the obvious ice-breaker questions one would ask at the beginning of the interview, while getting the coffee. He received his M.Div. degree from a Protestant seminary and—someone must have seen his resume in order to find his academic qualifications for teaching college classes—this itself should have raised questions. But apparently not.
However he was hired, with whatever degree of knowledge or ignorance, the college should be praised for not hiring him again. St. George runs the local branch of an enterprise dedicated in part to drawing people away from the Catholic Church into what it claims is real Catholicism, and doing so by looking as much like the Church as possible. The kind of Christianity into which it draws people is one the Church knows to be spiritually and morally destructive.
Not rehiring someone like St. George is not just a matter of protecting the brand, to put the matter in secular terms, though the Church has to be much more careful than Chestnut Hill College was to make sure that her identity and her message remain clear, if she wants people to know what they’re getting and avoid the imitations and knock-offs. It is a matter of proclaiming the life-giving truths she offers the world in a way that will be seen and heard in a world filled with groups offering partial and incomplete and misleading gospels, gospels marketed as if they were the real thing.
What those truths are and who may join in proclaiming them is something for the Church, not annoyed newspaper columnists (and vexed editorials are likely to follow, I suspect) to decide.
David Mills is Deputy Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Comments:
2.28.2011 | 11:09am
Tom Daly says:
Did you see this columnist's sympathetic article about Archbishop Lefebre and the Society of St. Pius? Probably because there wasn't one.
2.28.2011 | 11:51am
Tony Esolen says:
And why should David have written about the Lefebvrists sympathetically? I mean, I have some sympathy for the Lefebvrists, but I don't see any need to defend what they did. I'll let God sort that out.
I am friends with three devout French Canadian priests, members of a group called Les Fils de Marie. Their foundress, who is still alive and well in Italy, has made some bizarre claims about her relationship to Mary. The Vatican has put her on a kind of not-to-be-heeded list, and has asked the priests among the Fils de Marie, all of them validly ordained, to distance themselves from her. So far, I believe, they have not done that. So my three friends have been stripped of their authority to serve as priests. I am hoping that the situation will be resolved, but -- as much as I admire these men, and as desperately as Canada needs such priests, I can't come to any other conclusion than that their duty is to obey.
Beneath the newspaper's coverage of this matter is the unspoken assumption, never argued for but merely taken for granted, that the Church is simply wrong and that anything that undermines the Church must be good. The Sexual Revolution is trumps. And -- how many kids in Philadelphia are growing up without fathers? Ah, yes, people will say that the Sexual Revolution is one thing, but celebrating men with unnatural sexual proclivities is another. Good luck trying to argue that one.
I am friends with three devout French Canadian priests, members of a group called Les Fils de Marie. Their foundress, who is still alive and well in Italy, has made some bizarre claims about her relationship to Mary. The Vatican has put her on a kind of not-to-be-heeded list, and has asked the priests among the Fils de Marie, all of them validly ordained, to distance themselves from her. So far, I believe, they have not done that. So my three friends have been stripped of their authority to serve as priests. I am hoping that the situation will be resolved, but -- as much as I admire these men, and as desperately as Canada needs such priests, I can't come to any other conclusion than that their duty is to obey.
Beneath the newspaper's coverage of this matter is the unspoken assumption, never argued for but merely taken for granted, that the Church is simply wrong and that anything that undermines the Church must be good. The Sexual Revolution is trumps. And -- how many kids in Philadelphia are growing up without fathers? Ah, yes, people will say that the Sexual Revolution is one thing, but celebrating men with unnatural sexual proclivities is another. Good luck trying to argue that one.
2.28.2011 | 12:31pm
David Mills says:
Tony: I think Tom Daly means the *Philadelphia Daily News* columnist.
Also behind the kinds of arguments you're thinking of is the unspoken assumption that everyone must be able to "express himself" in his sexual life, and do what he wants with the person or people he wants, as long as he stays within broad legal limits. That seems to many people blazingly obvious. "Who you are" is determined entirely by your affections and desires.
They therefore see the Church's "rules" as bizarre and irrational impositions upon normal human life and from there assume that Catholic institutions shouldn't insist on those rules, which they believe of the same sort of irrationality as racism.
Also behind the kinds of arguments you're thinking of is the unspoken assumption that everyone must be able to "express himself" in his sexual life, and do what he wants with the person or people he wants, as long as he stays within broad legal limits. That seems to many people blazingly obvious. "Who you are" is determined entirely by your affections and desires.
They therefore see the Church's "rules" as bizarre and irrational impositions upon normal human life and from there assume that Catholic institutions shouldn't insist on those rules, which they believe of the same sort of irrationality as racism.
2.28.2011 | 12:52pm
Bob G says:
Two comments. First, I noted that this St. George guy's group claims to have some connection to Glastonbury. Probably many readers have never heard of it. Hilaire Belloc wrote some fascinating things about Glastonbury. In the Middle Ages it was far more important than any other shrine in Europe, including Spain’s Santiago, which gets so much press today. In modern times, though, Glastonbury has become a magnet for New Agers, all of whom seek to appropriate it for themselves. So that tells us something about The Old Apostolic Catholic Church of America.
Second, Mr. Mills deplores that St. George was not sufficiently vetted before he was hired. I don't know. We could say something similar about the theological faculties of most "Catholic" colleges, whose main interest seems to be in securing someone who looks trendy. Orthodoxy is almost the last thing on their minds until some sort of crisis erupts. Just be grateful they found their way clear to letting Mr. St. George go.
Second, Mr. Mills deplores that St. George was not sufficiently vetted before he was hired. I don't know. We could say something similar about the theological faculties of most "Catholic" colleges, whose main interest seems to be in securing someone who looks trendy. Orthodoxy is almost the last thing on their minds until some sort of crisis erupts. Just be grateful they found their way clear to letting Mr. St. George go.
2.28.2011 | 1:49pm
Jamie says:
But is there one, univocal Church, that offers one simple set of rules?
Many Catholics think there is. And yet however, if we appeal to the "Magisterium," we appeal to say, 400 bishops ... each with slightly different opinions or theologies. Or if we appeal to "tradition" - we appeal again to thousands of somewhat different opinions. The Magisterium iand tradition, in their written, literary sources, include thousands of volumes, and writings about thousands of saints. Not all of whom agree on everything.
Then too? Even the Catechism is written in favor more equivocal, polysemic language than most Catholicss know.
Then too? Should Theology be reined in by ordinary, popular but watered-down ideas of what Catholicism is?
Why do conservative Catholics constantly want to decapitate their Church? And turn it into a "Made Simple" guide?
Isn't God far too complex, for that?
Isn't there something offensive in fact, in seeing our religion reduced to a mere "brand"?
Many Catholics think there is. And yet however, if we appeal to the "Magisterium," we appeal to say, 400 bishops ... each with slightly different opinions or theologies. Or if we appeal to "tradition" - we appeal again to thousands of somewhat different opinions. The Magisterium iand tradition, in their written, literary sources, include thousands of volumes, and writings about thousands of saints. Not all of whom agree on everything.
Then too? Even the Catechism is written in favor more equivocal, polysemic language than most Catholicss know.
Then too? Should Theology be reined in by ordinary, popular but watered-down ideas of what Catholicism is?
Why do conservative Catholics constantly want to decapitate their Church? And turn it into a "Made Simple" guide?
Isn't God far too complex, for that?
Isn't there something offensive in fact, in seeing our religion reduced to a mere "brand"?
2.28.2011 | 1:53pm
Tom Daly says:
Yes David. My point was that the main stream media seems always to celebrate trendy dissension, and deplore traditionalist dissension, with typical hypocrisy.
2.28.2011 | 2:09pm
Tony Esolen says:
Sorry, Tom, I should have figured.
As for the supposed vagueness of the Church's teachings regarding sex, there isn't any. Nor are the scriptures vague about it. Sexual intercourse is licit for married couples and for no one else, and it must be open, in the form of the act and in the intent of the couple, to new life, even when the couple for serious reasons abstain from intercourse during fertile times.
What about "for married couples and for no one else" is hard to understand?
And -- how many social problems would be cleared out of the way if people observed these teachings?
As for the supposed vagueness of the Church's teachings regarding sex, there isn't any. Nor are the scriptures vague about it. Sexual intercourse is licit for married couples and for no one else, and it must be open, in the form of the act and in the intent of the couple, to new life, even when the couple for serious reasons abstain from intercourse during fertile times.
What about "for married couples and for no one else" is hard to understand?
And -- how many social problems would be cleared out of the way if people observed these teachings?
2.28.2011 | 4:59pm
Denyse O'Leary says:
What puzzles me is why St. George or anyone else should be surprised that he wouldn't be welcome to teach at an authentic Catholic institution.
Why doesn't his ecclesial community start its own college and put him in charge?
That's what freedom of religion is supposed to be about. Not his freedom to leech off an existing millennial church that has always rejected the lifestyle he embodies, but his freedom to thrive (or not) elsewhere.
All that said, Catholic institutions must now lose the no-due-diligence dweebs who create these problems. That's a start on making it clear, up front, that New Testament lifestyle teachings are not under reconsideration in authentic Catholic institutions. Those who do not like that are free to pursue their vocations elsewhere.
Why doesn't his ecclesial community start its own college and put him in charge?
That's what freedom of religion is supposed to be about. Not his freedom to leech off an existing millennial church that has always rejected the lifestyle he embodies, but his freedom to thrive (or not) elsewhere.
All that said, Catholic institutions must now lose the no-due-diligence dweebs who create these problems. That's a start on making it clear, up front, that New Testament lifestyle teachings are not under reconsideration in authentic Catholic institutions. Those who do not like that are free to pursue their vocations elsewhere.
2.28.2011 | 5:48pm
Anonymous3 says:
Our Lord underwent His Passion , to bless us with The Holy Spirit - to help His children to live holy , peaceful, joyful and even powerful lives where The Spirit can alight , abide and guide , in ways of order, goodness and holiness ... to drive off agents that would try to destroy and mislead and bring kingdoms of disorderly appetites , deceptions , lies ..
St.Miriam ...St. George ...just makes tad clearer our Lord's admonition on using His Name in vain or of those whom He dearly loves - 'depart from Me .. I do not know you .'
Lord have mercy !
St.Miriam ...St. George ...just makes tad clearer our Lord's admonition on using His Name in vain or of those whom He dearly loves - 'depart from Me .. I do not know you .'
Lord have mercy !
2.28.2011 | 6:01pm
David Poecking says:
One of the distinctive claims of Catholicism is that Christianity, following David's analogy, is both a "brand" and the commodity to be branded.
To be only the commodity, be it a doctrine or a spirituality or a morality or some combination of the three, is to abstract the thing from the historical particularity of the Lord Jesus, complete with his retrospective into Jewish history and his prospective into the Church he founded. It is no accident that those in the West fond of a generic, brandless Christianity continue to spin away not only from the Catholic Church, but from anything definitively associated with the historical Christ himself. A few find themselves invoking supposedly historic doctrines against the historic Church itself; most instead dispense themselves from the Lordship of Christ and find more in common with the social justice preached by Marxists or the spiritualisms of the pagans.
To be only the brand is to deny the Gospel preached by Jesus himself---the call to perfect integration of divinely revealed truth, sacramental practice, and interiorized morality. It is a kind of re-Judaization---here understanding Judaism as a racial identity---which turns Christianity into an affiliation that prescinds from any supernatural relationality or transformation.
To be only the commodity, be it a doctrine or a spirituality or a morality or some combination of the three, is to abstract the thing from the historical particularity of the Lord Jesus, complete with his retrospective into Jewish history and his prospective into the Church he founded. It is no accident that those in the West fond of a generic, brandless Christianity continue to spin away not only from the Catholic Church, but from anything definitively associated with the historical Christ himself. A few find themselves invoking supposedly historic doctrines against the historic Church itself; most instead dispense themselves from the Lordship of Christ and find more in common with the social justice preached by Marxists or the spiritualisms of the pagans.
To be only the brand is to deny the Gospel preached by Jesus himself---the call to perfect integration of divinely revealed truth, sacramental practice, and interiorized morality. It is a kind of re-Judaization---here understanding Judaism as a racial identity---which turns Christianity into an affiliation that prescinds from any supernatural relationality or transformation.
2.28.2011 | 6:38pm
Jamie says:
Curiously, the Church allows our many thousands of American gay priests to continue as priests. The provision is that they are not "actively" gay.
2.28.2011 | 7:58pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
I doubt that the newspaper would think it appropriate if one of the people it was paying to sell advertising was actually loyal to a competing newspaper and feeding clients to the competition. It is hypocritical presumption that the newspaper thinks it has any business telling a private institution how to set or enforce its own standards, especially when the person being fired demonstrated lack of integrity and lack of honesty about which team he was actually batting for.
It is the same presumption that is at the root of the "gay rights" activism that seeks to use government to punish churches that hold to traditional moral values. If government has no business telling people who they can have sex with, it has even less right to tell people who they can worship with, and live as Christians with.
It is the same presumption that is at the root of the "gay rights" activism that seeks to use government to punish churches that hold to traditional moral values. If government has no business telling people who they can have sex with, it has even less right to tell people who they can worship with, and live as Christians with.
2.28.2011 | 10:14pm
Dan says:
Sadly, couldn't they didn't seem to be able to discern the creature in question was a flamer.
And the reason is that there are so very many flamers in the priesthood that nobody is throwing them out.
Andrew Greeley once said if a seminarian gave the slightest inkling that there wasn't something quite right about him and his masculinity, ----------- then before he even had time to blink he was out the door.
But since Vatican II, ----------------------------- they'll take anybody, just so long as he isn't orthodox.
It's a sign of the times.
Nothing less than a sign of the times
And the reason is that there are so very many flamers in the priesthood that nobody is throwing them out.
Andrew Greeley once said if a seminarian gave the slightest inkling that there wasn't something quite right about him and his masculinity, ----------- then before he even had time to blink he was out the door.
But since Vatican II, ----------------------------- they'll take anybody, just so long as he isn't orthodox.
It's a sign of the times.
Nothing less than a sign of the times
2.28.2011 | 10:40pm
edmond says:
I think the "branding" of catholicism is a consequence of keeping the truth of the
Gospel distinct from perversions of that truth. John's second letter against false
teachers and his third letter condemning the acts of diotrephes for distortions of
John's teachings, ergo the Diotrephes syndrome. Obviously, true teachings had to
and still have to be "protected". My own experience is with a few members of the"progressive" catholics who conjure up their own theologies and foist them upon
high school students. These progressives that have a few nuns and priests
behind them teach that God was really a female and other such fantasies. After a bringing the matter to the school principal's attention the teacher was removed. It is tough
but schools and parishes need to monitor what is being espoused by those that are empowered to "spread the word". SHepherds need to keep the wolves out.
Gospel distinct from perversions of that truth. John's second letter against false
teachers and his third letter condemning the acts of diotrephes for distortions of
John's teachings, ergo the Diotrephes syndrome. Obviously, true teachings had to
and still have to be "protected". My own experience is with a few members of the"progressive" catholics who conjure up their own theologies and foist them upon
high school students. These progressives that have a few nuns and priests
behind them teach that God was really a female and other such fantasies. After a bringing the matter to the school principal's attention the teacher was removed. It is tough
but schools and parishes need to monitor what is being espoused by those that are empowered to "spread the word". SHepherds need to keep the wolves out.
3.1.2011 | 8:54am
Okorie, E. C. says:
I must confess that I am surprised that this man could pass through the screening for the job and actually got it. I am of the opinion that the degree of compromise by the college is alarming. How are we sure that there are no other Jim St. George in the college? Can somebody please sit up and to what he/she is expected to do. The faith we have is so precious that I find it difficult to swallow when someone is toying with it. The authorities at the college have a lot of explaining to make. Finally, it is better not to give the newpaper the type of attention it is seeking.
3.1.2011 | 10:21am
Joe Long says:
St. Miriam's? Not a bad allusion. "Miriam" means "bitter" - and Miriam was stricken with leprosy for her attempt to usurp Moses' God-given authority.
Miriam also repented and was cleansed - let's hope the metaphor carries all the way through.
Miriam also repented and was cleansed - let's hope the metaphor carries all the way through.
3.1.2011 | 2:25pm
Elizabeth K. says:
I'm not even a little bit surprised that he was hired in the first place, especially for an adjunct position. It's quite likely one person did the hiring, that there may have been little awareness that he was even there--even at a small college. Interviews of adjuncts are often brief and perfunctory. I don't know how many Catholics are at this college--I do know, as a professor at a Jesuit school, that there is indifference to an applicant's religious views in most departments, and even hostility towards those who are traditionally Catholic. While it seems a theology department at a smaller school like this might have a better handle on the issue, it just isn't surprising, given the state of Catholic academia these days, that they didn't.
I just can't understand why Catholic colleges are doing this to themselves, gutting themselves from within. Good for them for not rehiring them, but Okorie is right to wonder about the state of other employees. I can't see a solution, to be honest, and I'm saddened by what I see as the future for Catholic institutions.
I just can't understand why Catholic colleges are doing this to themselves, gutting themselves from within. Good for them for not rehiring them, but Okorie is right to wonder about the state of other employees. I can't see a solution, to be honest, and I'm saddened by what I see as the future for Catholic institutions.
3.1.2011 | 4:49pm
Sean Fitzpatrick says:
Good point, Denyse O'Leary. His lot felt the need to set up a separate establishment. Why wouldn't it work the other way? Maybe he was on a mission of deliberate subversion.
3.1.2011 | 5:28pm
Anonymous 3 says:
Above comment shows how much preparation needs to be there before a child reaches college age - families taking time for regular attendance at Liturgy which is considered to be the best place to hear theWord of God , confession as one of the best forms of exorcisms in a world where there is no dearth of exposure and entry for things that are not of God ..
Eucharistic Adoration on a regular basis, for atleast twice the time given for other pursuits , making the whole atmosphere more Catholic , through devotional chants , regular religious Festivals in the old fashioned style , instead of idolising sports teams and cheer leaders and the whole campus can prepare for such occasions , to share the talents - may be the parents and and a nucleus of committed students to ask for such !
Catholic places hiring nonChristians even and then trying to make them feel like they belong fully - unsure if that too is a relevant issue .
The second letter of John warns us - 'anyone who is so progressive as not to remain in the teaching of Christ ....and does not bring this doctrine , do not rceieve him in your house or even greet him.'
Seems it would be not that difficult for even an alumnae committee to monitor a few critical areas such as these - how much education and help is there is preventing sexual immorality , alcoholism ..emphasis on regular bible classes , charity work and evangelisation ...even random interviews of staff to assess the fidelity to The Church !
Thus , we would have Presidential candidates ( unlike our current Pres . supposedly educated at a Jesuit college ! ) who would be good , committed family men with the glow of living holy lives which is what our current and previous Holy Fathers so well have shown us !
Eucharistic Adoration on a regular basis, for atleast twice the time given for other pursuits , making the whole atmosphere more Catholic , through devotional chants , regular religious Festivals in the old fashioned style , instead of idolising sports teams and cheer leaders and the whole campus can prepare for such occasions , to share the talents - may be the parents and and a nucleus of committed students to ask for such !
Catholic places hiring nonChristians even and then trying to make them feel like they belong fully - unsure if that too is a relevant issue .
The second letter of John warns us - 'anyone who is so progressive as not to remain in the teaching of Christ ....and does not bring this doctrine , do not rceieve him in your house or even greet him.'
Seems it would be not that difficult for even an alumnae committee to monitor a few critical areas such as these - how much education and help is there is preventing sexual immorality , alcoholism ..emphasis on regular bible classes , charity work and evangelisation ...even random interviews of staff to assess the fidelity to The Church !
Thus , we would have Presidential candidates ( unlike our current Pres . supposedly educated at a Jesuit college ! ) who would be good , committed family men with the glow of living holy lives which is what our current and previous Holy Fathers so well have shown us !
3.1.2011 | 8:41pm
edmond says:
I agree with Anonymous 3 totally. As I posted many times before, it begins at home and in grade school... If parents or teachers in the elementary are not savvy enough to be working role models, there then all is amiss.
3.2.2011 | 8:56am
Rev Larry A Peters says:
I understand the reason for letting the guy go and would affirm the right of the school and churches to employ only those who are part of their tradition. Yet I also dismiss the idea that the "Catholic" brand belongs to the branch of the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome. As a Lutheran, whose confessional documents and liturgy both claim and manifest evangelical catholicity, I resent when the word Catholic is claimed for exclusive use of the Roman Catholic Church. I would suspect that others might feel similarly. Though there are also small splinter groups that use the word, it might be time for us to stop using Catholic as a shorthand designation for Roman Catholic and use the more explicit identifier. By the way, did not the College ask for the parish where the person held membership? I know that our colleges do. That would have identified the discrepancy before employment. That is the real issue here.
3.2.2011 | 12:28pm
Michael PS says:
Curiously, the original Old Catholic Church of Utrecht began life as a rigorous, Jansenist schism, opposed to the Bull Unigenitus. It was from them that the 1870 dissenters from Papal Infallibility acquired their episcopal orders.
I wonder what St Cyran and Arnauld and Quesnel would make of their spiritual descendants.
I wonder what St Cyran and Arnauld and Quesnel would make of their spiritual descendants.
3.2.2011 | 2:43pm
Jane \Yavis says:
First introduction he was Antioch Rite, then Antioch Apostolic Rite, then Antioch Catholic Apostolic rite,,, then Old catholic, Old Apostolic catholic, Liberal Catholic,,, and on and on. My head was spinning - but the radar went up. . I won't go too deeply into all the Old catholic, etc.,,, as I a not a scholar.- His references were vague and at best "Cliff Notesish" when explaining himself on a live blog as well as on the radio -- It sounded more like a Political run for Office,,, and he was everything to everyone - I think he was trying to imply that he was of Eastern, Byzantine Rite or Oorthodox Rite to add a little more.
I am sorry that Chestnue Hill fired Pastor St. Geore for being gay. I don't think that should have been the reason, I firmly believe his mis-represented and still does misrepresent himself. There is nothing "Christian" let alone Catholic about his ad campaign, which had he not started that can of worms and been praised by self-described "Recovering Catholics" -- none of this would have happened. --
I took Accounting Courses nd involved in many Employer Sponsoerd Accounting Courses and seminars with Certificates of Accomplishment from the University of Pennsylvania,,, If I said I was a Wharton Grad on my Resume' it would be false and I should be fired.
I am sorry that Chestnue Hill fired Pastor St. Geore for being gay. I don't think that should have been the reason, I firmly believe his mis-represented and still does misrepresent himself. There is nothing "Christian" let alone Catholic about his ad campaign, which had he not started that can of worms and been praised by self-described "Recovering Catholics" -- none of this would have happened. --
I took Accounting Courses nd involved in many Employer Sponsoerd Accounting Courses and seminars with Certificates of Accomplishment from the University of Pennsylvania,,, If I said I was a Wharton Grad on my Resume' it would be false and I should be fired.
3.3.2011 | 7:34pm
JMJ2in1 says:
Now if only someone would inform the new Archbishop of Seattle that the allegedly "catholic" Jesuit Seattle University has Planned Parenthood on its list of internships.
3.4.2011 | 5:56pm
Fr. Juan R. Velez says:
This piece and the comments above only highlight the need for people to take seriously the question about the nature of a Catholic college or university. I recently read the Application of Ex-Corde Ecclesiae for the United States (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/youth/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20100806_youth_en.html) and invite you to do likewise.
Serious in depth teaching of Catholic doctrine and morals, a vibrant spiritual and intellectual environment, the example of orthodox faculty and staff, the clear vision and direction of the board of trustees and president committed to Catholic Education are all essential elements in Catholic higher Education. They are lacking in many institutions for a number of reasons such as a misunderstanding of the proper understanding of theology and Church teaching, the university and the Church, and a superficial notion of academic freedom and tolerance.
Some schools such as Thomas Aquinas (CA), Franciscan University, and the University of St. Thomas (Houston), to name a few, are not afraid to work towards the ideals of Catholic Education and to foster a Catholic culture. They have a great deal to teach other schools.
Serious in depth teaching of Catholic doctrine and morals, a vibrant spiritual and intellectual environment, the example of orthodox faculty and staff, the clear vision and direction of the board of trustees and president committed to Catholic Education are all essential elements in Catholic higher Education. They are lacking in many institutions for a number of reasons such as a misunderstanding of the proper understanding of theology and Church teaching, the university and the Church, and a superficial notion of academic freedom and tolerance.
Some schools such as Thomas Aquinas (CA), Franciscan University, and the University of St. Thomas (Houston), to name a few, are not afraid to work towards the ideals of Catholic Education and to foster a Catholic culture. They have a great deal to teach other schools.
3.5.2011 | 8:29am
ronnie polaneczky says:
I am the Philadelphia Daily News columnist who wrote the articles about Father Jim St. George. I'd like to make a few points.
1. Father Jim St. George was solicited by Chestnut Hill College to teach as an adjunct. He did not seek the position. I make this point only because it has been implied, by the school and by many commenters to my stories about this situation, that Father Jim, in seeking a teaching position, approached the school and asked for an adjunct gig. This was not the case. The college had a last-minute need for an adjunct, as the professor scheduled to teach a certain course was unexpectedly unable to do so. A staffer at the school who knew Father Jim suggested him as a possible replacement candidate. Father Jim was contacted at his church by the school and asked if he'd like to be considered, a question that surprised him. He says that he asked the caller, "I thought you had to be Roman Catholic to teach at Chestnut Hill?" To which the caller replied, "No, we have many non-Roman Catholics who teach here."
Father Jim apparently passed whatever vetting and/or background checks the school required. He was given a contract and did a good enough job that he was offered sequential contracts for the following eight semesters.
Perhaps the offers were made, in part, because of the high marks Father Jim received on student evaluations. A staffer at CH told me that Father Jim's student reviews were higher than those of the 55 other adjuncts in his department. I independently reviewed his evaluations, and the scores and comments from students appear to support that observation. My independent interviews with some of Father Jim's current and prior students - who ranged in age from about 20 to about 60 - elicited comments that I think any professor would appreciate hearing. One student said Father Jim helped her to understand God's "awesome" power and love, and inspired her to be a conduit of God's love for others. I am not fabricating these remarks, merely repeating them here because it seems relevant to point out that Father Jim appeared to have a profound impact on his students' sense of and gratitude for God's ever-presence in their lives.
2. It has been implied that Father Jim not only falsely presented himself as a Roman Catholic priest, but also falsely presented himself as any kind of priest at all - as though he bought himself a priest's collar, put it on and paraded as a man who wasn't ordained as any sort of priest. This is not true. Father Jim has a masters in divinity from Howard University, was ordained in the Antioch Catholic church and is a priest. No, he is not Roman Catholic priest, but to imply that he is not a priest at all is as false as implying that a validly ordained Methodist priest is not a priest because he was not ordained as a Roman Catholic one.
3. Father Jim has been critical of the Roman Catholic Church. It is absolutely true. If the college wanted to revoke its contract offer to him because of his publicly critical views of Roman Catholicism, this would be an entirely different matter, with its own set of arguments - and I imagine I would have an opinion sympathetic to the college, to be honest.
But the fact is that the college stated - unequivocally, and in two separate statements - that Father Jim was being fired because he is an openly gay man in a long-term relationship and that this status is "contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
This is the only - again, the only - reason that was given. Father Jim was fired for being in a long-term relationship with another man. Period.
4. The college has taken great pains to note that Father Jim was not "fired," because he is an adjunct, works on a contract basis, and therefore cannot be "fired." They say that he was simply not offered another contract. This is not true. He WAS offered another contract - I have the paperwork to prove it - but the offer was revoked when the college learned of his gay relationship. I suppose the college can argue that using the word "fired" in this instance is not technically accurate, if you presume "fired" implies only to those axed employees who once received W-2's from the said workplace. I would counter that that is a distinction without a difference. The truth is this: Chestnut Hill offered Father Jim a contract and then revoked the offer before he could sign the contract. I make this point only because the college has taken great pains, repeatedly, to say that Father Jim was not "fired."
5. The salient point, to me, is that Father Jim was fired for being in a gay relationship, and that gay relations are "contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
So what of the Jewish adjuncts, whose very faith is "contrary" to Roman Catholic teaching, in that the Jewish faith doesn't recognize the divinity of Jesus? What of the many other staffers who, perhaps, use birth control, engage in pre-marital sex or masturbation, have been divorced or remarried in ways contrary to RC teaching, hold pro-choice views? Will the school offer them walking papers as well? Or is it only gay staffers and/or adjuncts who need to be concerned about their connection with teh school?
If the school is unwilling to ferret out all those whose actions are "contrary" to RC teaching, then it appears that Father Jim was targeted while others were not. This possibility raises more questions than I can list here, but I think father Jim deserves to have them answered.
It's important to note that Chestnut Hill takes great pains to characterize itself as an inclusive community, welcoming of diversity in all forms. The school even has a Gay Straight Student Alliance. If the school is unable or unwilling to abide by that "welcoming of diversity "characterization, why not simply adjust their mission statement accordingly? Not every school can be all things to all people, and perhaps Chestnut Hill is realizing that. If the school is clear, right on its website's home page, about being an educational institution that expects its community to adhere to RC teachings, then they would get the community they want. And those unable or unwilling to live lives in adherence to RC teachings would know that the college might not be a good fit for them.
Adjusting its mission statement, of course, might set Chestnut Hill into a tailspin for a while. Many of its students and staff are not Roman Catholic, or live lives and hold beliefs that do not coincide with RC teaching. So there might be less interest from potential students in attending the college, or from potential professors in teaching there. As well, there might be an exodus of current students or staffers who no longer feel the school is a good fit for them, once the school clarifies what it expects from its community.
But eventually, the school would probably right itself, with students and staff who are on the same page as administration.
If anyone would like to speak with students whom Father Jim taught, I can ask the students if I may share their telephone numbers with anyone on this blog who cares to speak with them. I can be reached at polaner@phillynews.com.
One last thing: I have been referred to on this blog as an "annoyed columnist" because of my defense of Father Jim. I disagree with the word "annoyed" because it is not a strong enough word to describe my opinion about what Chestnut Hill did to Father Jim. I don't find it "annoying." I find it "outrageous." The school targeted a man in a way that they have not targeted others in the Chestnut Hill community who, like Father Jim, are living lives not in adherence to RC teaching. I think Father Jim deserves to know why he was singled out.
Thanks.
1. Father Jim St. George was solicited by Chestnut Hill College to teach as an adjunct. He did not seek the position. I make this point only because it has been implied, by the school and by many commenters to my stories about this situation, that Father Jim, in seeking a teaching position, approached the school and asked for an adjunct gig. This was not the case. The college had a last-minute need for an adjunct, as the professor scheduled to teach a certain course was unexpectedly unable to do so. A staffer at the school who knew Father Jim suggested him as a possible replacement candidate. Father Jim was contacted at his church by the school and asked if he'd like to be considered, a question that surprised him. He says that he asked the caller, "I thought you had to be Roman Catholic to teach at Chestnut Hill?" To which the caller replied, "No, we have many non-Roman Catholics who teach here."
Father Jim apparently passed whatever vetting and/or background checks the school required. He was given a contract and did a good enough job that he was offered sequential contracts for the following eight semesters.
Perhaps the offers were made, in part, because of the high marks Father Jim received on student evaluations. A staffer at CH told me that Father Jim's student reviews were higher than those of the 55 other adjuncts in his department. I independently reviewed his evaluations, and the scores and comments from students appear to support that observation. My independent interviews with some of Father Jim's current and prior students - who ranged in age from about 20 to about 60 - elicited comments that I think any professor would appreciate hearing. One student said Father Jim helped her to understand God's "awesome" power and love, and inspired her to be a conduit of God's love for others. I am not fabricating these remarks, merely repeating them here because it seems relevant to point out that Father Jim appeared to have a profound impact on his students' sense of and gratitude for God's ever-presence in their lives.
2. It has been implied that Father Jim not only falsely presented himself as a Roman Catholic priest, but also falsely presented himself as any kind of priest at all - as though he bought himself a priest's collar, put it on and paraded as a man who wasn't ordained as any sort of priest. This is not true. Father Jim has a masters in divinity from Howard University, was ordained in the Antioch Catholic church and is a priest. No, he is not Roman Catholic priest, but to imply that he is not a priest at all is as false as implying that a validly ordained Methodist priest is not a priest because he was not ordained as a Roman Catholic one.
3. Father Jim has been critical of the Roman Catholic Church. It is absolutely true. If the college wanted to revoke its contract offer to him because of his publicly critical views of Roman Catholicism, this would be an entirely different matter, with its own set of arguments - and I imagine I would have an opinion sympathetic to the college, to be honest.
But the fact is that the college stated - unequivocally, and in two separate statements - that Father Jim was being fired because he is an openly gay man in a long-term relationship and that this status is "contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
This is the only - again, the only - reason that was given. Father Jim was fired for being in a long-term relationship with another man. Period.
4. The college has taken great pains to note that Father Jim was not "fired," because he is an adjunct, works on a contract basis, and therefore cannot be "fired." They say that he was simply not offered another contract. This is not true. He WAS offered another contract - I have the paperwork to prove it - but the offer was revoked when the college learned of his gay relationship. I suppose the college can argue that using the word "fired" in this instance is not technically accurate, if you presume "fired" implies only to those axed employees who once received W-2's from the said workplace. I would counter that that is a distinction without a difference. The truth is this: Chestnut Hill offered Father Jim a contract and then revoked the offer before he could sign the contract. I make this point only because the college has taken great pains, repeatedly, to say that Father Jim was not "fired."
5. The salient point, to me, is that Father Jim was fired for being in a gay relationship, and that gay relations are "contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church."
So what of the Jewish adjuncts, whose very faith is "contrary" to Roman Catholic teaching, in that the Jewish faith doesn't recognize the divinity of Jesus? What of the many other staffers who, perhaps, use birth control, engage in pre-marital sex or masturbation, have been divorced or remarried in ways contrary to RC teaching, hold pro-choice views? Will the school offer them walking papers as well? Or is it only gay staffers and/or adjuncts who need to be concerned about their connection with teh school?
If the school is unwilling to ferret out all those whose actions are "contrary" to RC teaching, then it appears that Father Jim was targeted while others were not. This possibility raises more questions than I can list here, but I think father Jim deserves to have them answered.
It's important to note that Chestnut Hill takes great pains to characterize itself as an inclusive community, welcoming of diversity in all forms. The school even has a Gay Straight Student Alliance. If the school is unable or unwilling to abide by that "welcoming of diversity "characterization, why not simply adjust their mission statement accordingly? Not every school can be all things to all people, and perhaps Chestnut Hill is realizing that. If the school is clear, right on its website's home page, about being an educational institution that expects its community to adhere to RC teachings, then they would get the community they want. And those unable or unwilling to live lives in adherence to RC teachings would know that the college might not be a good fit for them.
Adjusting its mission statement, of course, might set Chestnut Hill into a tailspin for a while. Many of its students and staff are not Roman Catholic, or live lives and hold beliefs that do not coincide with RC teaching. So there might be less interest from potential students in attending the college, or from potential professors in teaching there. As well, there might be an exodus of current students or staffers who no longer feel the school is a good fit for them, once the school clarifies what it expects from its community.
But eventually, the school would probably right itself, with students and staff who are on the same page as administration.
If anyone would like to speak with students whom Father Jim taught, I can ask the students if I may share their telephone numbers with anyone on this blog who cares to speak with them. I can be reached at polaner@phillynews.com.
One last thing: I have been referred to on this blog as an "annoyed columnist" because of my defense of Father Jim. I disagree with the word "annoyed" because it is not a strong enough word to describe my opinion about what Chestnut Hill did to Father Jim. I don't find it "annoying." I find it "outrageous." The school targeted a man in a way that they have not targeted others in the Chestnut Hill community who, like Father Jim, are living lives not in adherence to RC teaching. I think Father Jim deserves to know why he was singled out.
Thanks.
3.6.2011 | 3:19am
Rick says:
It was a relief to read Ronnie Polaneczky's comments above. Finally, an authoritative and well-organized rebuttal to some of the preceding comments! I am no big booster of the homosexual lifestyle, but I simply cannot fathom how a church whose priesthood is riddled, if not dominated, by homosexuals can posture as the representative of uncompromising, monogamous heterosexuality.
My wife had a friend at Holy Cross College who felt called to the ministry and entered a seminary after graduation. She ran into him a few years later and discovered that he had left the seminary after his first year. It turned out that he was the only heterosexual in his entire class, and he concluded that he didn't belong there.
A few years ago, my wife and I invited Bill, a lay worker from our Catholic church and his wife to dinner one evening. Over dessert, he explained that he had entered a Franciscan seminary some years earlier. One day, his spiritual advisor called him in for a conference. After some hemming and hawing, the advisor said that it was better to get some difficult things out in the open. The seminary was, he explained, essentially a homosexual community, and Bill seemed to be, well, straight, and did he think he would fit in there? As it turned out, he didn't, which was why he was sitting at our dining table that evening with his wife.
Now, you can't have it both ways. Either you reject the homosexual lifestyle and eliminate a very large proportion of your own priesthood, or you shut up and let a gay adjunct teach his classes! What was it Jesus said about "whited sepulchres"? Oh yes, it was about those who lay heavy burdens of purity and morality on others, those who appear righteous, while within they are filled with all kinds of rot and decay.
My wife had a friend at Holy Cross College who felt called to the ministry and entered a seminary after graduation. She ran into him a few years later and discovered that he had left the seminary after his first year. It turned out that he was the only heterosexual in his entire class, and he concluded that he didn't belong there.
A few years ago, my wife and I invited Bill, a lay worker from our Catholic church and his wife to dinner one evening. Over dessert, he explained that he had entered a Franciscan seminary some years earlier. One day, his spiritual advisor called him in for a conference. After some hemming and hawing, the advisor said that it was better to get some difficult things out in the open. The seminary was, he explained, essentially a homosexual community, and Bill seemed to be, well, straight, and did he think he would fit in there? As it turned out, he didn't, which was why he was sitting at our dining table that evening with his wife.
Now, you can't have it both ways. Either you reject the homosexual lifestyle and eliminate a very large proportion of your own priesthood, or you shut up and let a gay adjunct teach his classes! What was it Jesus said about "whited sepulchres"? Oh yes, it was about those who lay heavy burdens of purity and morality on others, those who appear righteous, while within they are filled with all kinds of rot and decay.
3.13.2011 | 5:09pm
tom says:
Catholic is not a brand name. "Roman Catholic" is a brand name. Catholic means today and has always meant "Universal". The catholic church is diverse. Thank God!!
3.28.2011 | 9:53pm
Thomas Q says:
Since Philly.com won't post my comments about this story, I was wondering whether Ms. P will answer a couple of questions I have about her involvement with Jim St. George:
1. When did you find out that he is a convicted felon?
2. When did you find out that he was fired by Albert Einstein for impersonating a Roman Catholic priest?
3. When did you find out that he was fired by Lehigh Valley Hospital for impersonating a Roman Catholic priest?
4. When did you find out that your column about St. George "concelebrating" the Cassidy Mass with the "permission" of Rigali was a predicated on a complete and utter lie?
5. When did you find out that Jim St. George stole over a million dollars from people who invested in his casket business?
6. When did you find out that he was dishonorably discharged from the Navy?
7. Ask him about why he was expelled from the Episcopal seminary (Virginia Theological). It involves forgery....Or did you know that back story already? It's quite something...
8. Do you know about all of his bankruptcies?
9. What is it like to be played by a 21st century version of a snake oil salesman?
You see..the reason he "settled" with CHC is that he didn't want to answer questions about these things...for good reason.
1. When did you find out that he is a convicted felon?
2. When did you find out that he was fired by Albert Einstein for impersonating a Roman Catholic priest?
3. When did you find out that he was fired by Lehigh Valley Hospital for impersonating a Roman Catholic priest?
4. When did you find out that your column about St. George "concelebrating" the Cassidy Mass with the "permission" of Rigali was a predicated on a complete and utter lie?
5. When did you find out that Jim St. George stole over a million dollars from people who invested in his casket business?
6. When did you find out that he was dishonorably discharged from the Navy?
7. Ask him about why he was expelled from the Episcopal seminary (Virginia Theological). It involves forgery....Or did you know that back story already? It's quite something...
8. Do you know about all of his bankruptcies?
9. What is it like to be played by a 21st century version of a snake oil salesman?
You see..the reason he "settled" with CHC is that he didn't want to answer questions about these things...for good reason.
3.30.2011 | 4:09pm
ringerbearer says:
Not sure why Ronnie is the one cryin' over CHC firing Boy St. George. If Ronnie didn't run her column touting the exploits of Boy St. George, he would have never been outed. Seems like Ronnie is to blame for E-V-E-R-T-H-I-N-G!!! And, a note to Ronnie: There is no such thing as a Methodist priesthood. Nice try, but you are WAY, WAY over your head taking on the big, bad (Roman) Cahotlic Church. Please limit your column to property disputes between neighbors and uncovering great places for Philly cheesesteaks. Riddle me this, Ronnie: wit or witout?
4.4.2011 | 11:10pm
ChickenBonZ says:
I was waiting to hear about St. George's big, big deal with a prominent University in the Philadelphia area that he announced when CHC settled. And, lo and behold, that too is a FRAUD! One is led to believe this faux collar is now a professor at UPenn. I comes to find out that he has actually co-teaching a class with a buddy who is paying him under the table (will there be a w-2 or 1099 issued?) BECAUSE no one will hire him to teach. Hey, I once ate lunch in Harvard's cafeteria in Annenberg Hal, while facilitating a small group discussion about Schindler's List. Am I Harvard professor? Am I a Catholic priest?
4.8.2011 | 5:09pm
Kera Hamilton says:
To Thomas Q.
PLEASE come out onto email: antioch111@verizon.net, and help me take all this in.
I was his bishop before his recent move and your list has answered quite a number of the questions I could never get answered when he was in my diocese. Some of his "antics" just about brought our church down completely and did serious emotional and spiritual damage to clergy and parishioners alike.
I need your assistance so that together we can start putting together the shattered bits of the faithful that he left behind him.
PLEASE come out onto email: antioch111@verizon.net, and help me take all this in.
I was his bishop before his recent move and your list has answered quite a number of the questions I could never get answered when he was in my diocese. Some of his "antics" just about brought our church down completely and did serious emotional and spiritual damage to clergy and parishioners alike.
I need your assistance so that together we can start putting together the shattered bits of the faithful that he left behind him.
4.11.2011 | 6:57am
Thomas Q says:
Bishop -
What types of antics are you talking about? Why did he leave your church? Did you every share any of his antics with the press?
What types of antics are you talking about? Why did he leave your church? Did you every share any of his antics with the press?
4.11.2011 | 11:31am
Jack K. says:
Ms. Hamilton,
This man appears to be a very dangerous person. You need to come out to the media to protect others. Please share your story for the sake of the innocent. You obviously know what others don't and your position certainly makes your knowledge and information newsworthy.
This man appears to be a very dangerous person. You need to come out to the media to protect others. Please share your story for the sake of the innocent. You obviously know what others don't and your position certainly makes your knowledge and information newsworthy.
4.26.2011 | 3:07am
Onita Panagis says:
1. Father Jim St. George was solicited by Chestnut Hill College to teach as an adjunct. He did not seek the position. I make this point only because it has been implied, by the school and by many commenters to my stories about this situation, that Father Jim, in seeking a teaching position, approached the school and asked for an adjunct gig. This was not the case. The college had a last-minute need for an adjunct, as the professor scheduled to teach a certain course was unexpectedly unable to do so. A staffer at the school who knew Father Jim suggested him as a possible replacement candidate. Father Jim was contacted at his church by the school and asked if he'd like to be considered, a question that surprised him. He says that he asked the caller, "I thought you had to be Roman Catholic to teach at Chestnut Hill?" To which the caller replied, "No, we have many non-Roman Catholics who teach here." Our Lord underwent His Passion , to bless us with The Holy Spirit - to help His children to live holy , peaceful, joyful and even powerful lives where The Spirit can alight , abide and guide , in ways of order, goodness and holiness ... to drive off agents that would try to destroy and mislead and bring kingdoms of disorderly appetites , deceptions , lies ..
4.26.2011 | 8:21pm
Farquar St. Farquar says:
And the man's lies continue. The most recent is about his wholly self-absorbed "op-ed" that he said was published in local newspaperS (not just one, mind you...). So, just in case you missed it, he kindly republished it on his blog for us. Problem is....it wasn't published ANYWHERE. A small lie but a lie nonetheless and QUITE telling about the man. You see...he not only perceives himself as a guy with something to say...No. It's much more than THAT...He's a guy feels COMPELLED to lie about getting his (bizarre) blog entry published in newspapers. Now...Farquar finds anything this purported member of the "order of Melchisedec" (OH! How Farquar loves when he protests his purported membership in that most ancient of orders!!!) spews...but no one else seems to...
:(
Your humble Farquar won't comment much about the op-ed other than to say... Farquar couldn't believe the tone - kind of a reverse "break-up" narrative - it's not me...it's YOU...
:(
Your humble Farquar won't comment much about the op-ed other than to say... Farquar couldn't believe the tone - kind of a reverse "break-up" narrative - it's not me...it's YOU...
5.12.2011 | 9:45pm
Farquar St. Farquar says:
Does it ever end? A old blog posting from our friend....
This might be the most bizarre thing I've ever read....
And it's amazing how he left out his federal criminal conviction (that he protests he told everyone, especially his "students", about...)
The personal tour of the Kennedy compound is a particularly nice touch (which is in Hyannis)...
"It was shortly after my contract ended with Burton, the firm that bought out my family funeral homes that I began to seek a new job. I had a connection to a funeral home group in Massachusetts and I had heard that they were looking for a managing funeral director to oversee their large funeral home. After overseeing 29 homes, I thought it might be nice to just look after one; so I applied. It was approximately 30 days later that I received call giving me just two days notice to come and interview formally for the position. They had already vetted me and knew of my abilities, but the owner wanted to meet me for dinner. I drove the 12 hours straight through to arrive at least an hour early in order to rest; I checked into my hotel room.
He arrived early, too, and I was summed to the lobby – there I stood looking in the mirror of my hotel room, in my underwear, exhausted. I quickly freshened up and dressed and made my way to the lobby. There stood Bill Mulholland and he meant business. We were off in his 85K brand new Mercedes within seconds of hitting the lobby and off we were to a local restaurant. We arrived but all that way he never once stopped asking me questions.
We entered the lobby and I heard someone call out to Bill and they shook hands – it was Teddy Kennedy and his wife, Vicki. This funeral firm that I was interviewing for had buried every Kennedy. It was an amazing dinner conversation, and an amazing job interview. After dinner we toured the Kennedy compound. Next to John Kennedy’s bed stood a bed stand with his eye glasses and glass. I remember thinking to myself; he never knew he wouldn’t return. The room is left – to this very day – the way the President Kennedy left it that day. I am sure the same will happen to Ted.
I was offered the position on our way back to the hotel. It seemed that Ted Kennedy had given me his stamp of approval that night. However, I knew that I would never really fit in; I declined it graciously a week later."
This might be the most bizarre thing I've ever read....
And it's amazing how he left out his federal criminal conviction (that he protests he told everyone, especially his "students", about...)
The personal tour of the Kennedy compound is a particularly nice touch (which is in Hyannis)...
"It was shortly after my contract ended with Burton, the firm that bought out my family funeral homes that I began to seek a new job. I had a connection to a funeral home group in Massachusetts and I had heard that they were looking for a managing funeral director to oversee their large funeral home. After overseeing 29 homes, I thought it might be nice to just look after one; so I applied. It was approximately 30 days later that I received call giving me just two days notice to come and interview formally for the position. They had already vetted me and knew of my abilities, but the owner wanted to meet me for dinner. I drove the 12 hours straight through to arrive at least an hour early in order to rest; I checked into my hotel room.
He arrived early, too, and I was summed to the lobby – there I stood looking in the mirror of my hotel room, in my underwear, exhausted. I quickly freshened up and dressed and made my way to the lobby. There stood Bill Mulholland and he meant business. We were off in his 85K brand new Mercedes within seconds of hitting the lobby and off we were to a local restaurant. We arrived but all that way he never once stopped asking me questions.
We entered the lobby and I heard someone call out to Bill and they shook hands – it was Teddy Kennedy and his wife, Vicki. This funeral firm that I was interviewing for had buried every Kennedy. It was an amazing dinner conversation, and an amazing job interview. After dinner we toured the Kennedy compound. Next to John Kennedy’s bed stood a bed stand with his eye glasses and glass. I remember thinking to myself; he never knew he wouldn’t return. The room is left – to this very day – the way the President Kennedy left it that day. I am sure the same will happen to Ted.
I was offered the position on our way back to the hotel. It seemed that Ted Kennedy had given me his stamp of approval that night. However, I knew that I would never really fit in; I declined it graciously a week later."
6.21.2011 | 8:34pm
Alfredia Precht says:
Good point, Denyse O'Leary. His lot felt the need to set up a separate establishment. Why wouldn't it work the other way? Maybe he was on a mission of deliberate subversion. 3. Father Jim has been critical of the Roman Catholic Church. It is absolutely true. If the college wanted to revoke its contract offer to him because of his publicly critical views of Roman Catholicism, this would be an entirely different matter, with its own set of arguments - and I imagine I would have an opinion sympathetic to the college, to be honest.
8.3.2011 | 8:53pm
Poisoned turkey says:
This guy is a never ending source of amusement.
Notice how HE is always the "priest" (love it!) who goes above and beyond...whereas all other priests are...lacking? What? Not convicted felons? Not celebrating Masses (!) at Roman Catholic churches under false pretenses?
And what EXACTLY, Jimmy, is the back story on those who won't follow "protocol"? Do tell...
Apparently a couple rejected him when they interviewed him to marry them.
And the anger...
Sorry, Jim. Very sorry. But, as you know, you are a profoundly strange man (who some have called "quite evil") who has succeeded in creating something of a cult of personality (or maybe just a "cult") around yourself.
Meanwhile, Jim, sorry I missed the luau...nice try.
No "hidden agendas"? Really...
Enjoy a sampling of Jimmy St. George's recent vitriol. Not quite at the level of him meeting Vicki and Teddy Kennedy (replete with a private tour of the Kennedy compound) but....still very, very funny...
Please keep it coming, Jim. The MORE the better...
"I have met priests and ministers who would rather sit at home, in the safety of their enclosed spaces, rather than use their hands and feet and voices to change the world, or to stand up for injustice. I have met others who say they are ‘called’, but know not what shared ministry is, or refuse to follow process and protocol; they know not their place at the table. I have met couples who want to be married by a priest who is more open-minded than the current Church, but then say that I am ‘too liberal’!? Yes, there are lots of things today that I am dumbfounded about lately!"
Notice how HE is always the "priest" (love it!) who goes above and beyond...whereas all other priests are...lacking? What? Not convicted felons? Not celebrating Masses (!) at Roman Catholic churches under false pretenses?
And what EXACTLY, Jimmy, is the back story on those who won't follow "protocol"? Do tell...
Apparently a couple rejected him when they interviewed him to marry them.
And the anger...
Sorry, Jim. Very sorry. But, as you know, you are a profoundly strange man (who some have called "quite evil") who has succeeded in creating something of a cult of personality (or maybe just a "cult") around yourself.
Meanwhile, Jim, sorry I missed the luau...nice try.
No "hidden agendas"? Really...
Enjoy a sampling of Jimmy St. George's recent vitriol. Not quite at the level of him meeting Vicki and Teddy Kennedy (replete with a private tour of the Kennedy compound) but....still very, very funny...
Please keep it coming, Jim. The MORE the better...
"I have met priests and ministers who would rather sit at home, in the safety of their enclosed spaces, rather than use their hands and feet and voices to change the world, or to stand up for injustice. I have met others who say they are ‘called’, but know not what shared ministry is, or refuse to follow process and protocol; they know not their place at the table. I have met couples who want to be married by a priest who is more open-minded than the current Church, but then say that I am ‘too liberal’!? Yes, there are lots of things today that I am dumbfounded about lately!"
9.1.2011 | 3:35am
Cheerios says:
This is Jim trying to "set up" Chaput. I'm sure he knows that Chaput is no fan of the gay lifestyle let alone someone who spends his life spewing lies while (literally) prancing around dressed as a Catholic priest.
So Jim continues the charade - that he is a person of substance, that he is someone who has something to say and that he is a Catholic priest the same way...that Chaput is. He will find that Chaput will "disappoint" him and, in doing so, will yet again reinforce his (perceived) victimhood in the eyes of his cult members. Watch and wait - there will be another Jimmy St. George story on the horizon - this time about Jimmy and Chaput.... Which is the whole point of this lunacy and Jim's sad, twisted and evil existence.
Every sentence is a gem - enjoy his evil spewings...
I was interviewed recently by the National Lesbian Gay Journalism Association’s (NLGJA), Nicolaas Kopper, regarding the upcoming installation of Archbishop Charles Chaput, soon to be the new leader of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
For 21 years, NLGJA has drawn journalists, public relations professionals, and media industry leaders together for its annual convention. The 2011 National Convention & 8th Annual LGBT Media Summit came to Philadelphia this past week. Over the course of a few short days, more than 300 attendees had the unique opportunity to participate in top-level training sessions, thought-provoking discussions, and social & professional networking events. I was honored to be part of this process.
As I spoke with Nic during my interview time, it occurred to me that my thinking, very much the lives of His Eminence, Justin Cardinal Rigali, and now incoming Archbishop Charles Chaput, has two primary tracks of thought: hope and fear. Once I uncovered how my own mind was working, it became clearer what I wanted to say during this dialogue.
You see, with any major change in leadership you have two primary, and almost antagonistic emotions. Hope: that a new voice and leadership style will be like a breath of fresh air and bring a new cohesion and direction to the team. And, fear, that other ‘things’ may be uncovered; that still others will remain unchanged, or, worse, that a new leader will be somehow ‘shoddier’ than the last.
In my thinking on the upcoming installation of Archbishop Chaput, I find that - much like my thinking - both men came from two very different paths and perhaps this can be a strong indicator of things to come. If so, then hope will win in this quandary.
You see, Cardinal Rigali was basically born in Rome. (Well, it was actually in Los Angeles, but you get my point.) I think, though, that being born in large US city and then being ordained and almost immediately sent off to Rome – where he studied canon law and held a secretariat – certainly changed his worldview. He never really pastored a parish where the broken and marginalized come, he never served with other priests on ‘the front lines’ where ministry actually happens daily and where the pain of life is so easily felt. In fact, by the 70’s, Rigali was already a Monsignor and was globetrotting with the then current Pontiff, accompanying JP2 wherever he traveled. So, in reality, Rigali served at the Vatican until the 90’s when he was then appointed as Bishop of St Louis. (Yes, another large metropolitan area, and yes another position of power.) Finally, in 2003, he became the 8th bishop of Philadelphia and then was elevated to Cardinal.
Paradoxically, Archbishop Charles Chaput was on quite a different path.
Chaput was born in the proverbial and perhaps disambiguos (A great Wiki term!) mid-Western United States, in Kansas.
He became a Franciscan. In fact, a Capuchin, whose hallmarks are a more contemplative life-style coupled with a stricter observance of poverty. They were originally persecuted and always strive to live as ‘brothers among brothers’, committed to prayer and a strong fraternal life. And while the older eremitical idea have been abandoned, their life is to be one of extreme austerity, simplicity, and poverty—in all things as near an approach to St Francis’ idea as is practicable.
Chaput was ordained in the ’70’s and then began to help others with spiritual direction and theology. Then, (unlike Cardinal Rigali) he became a pastor of a parish where he lived within a community that needed him. And, perhaps, where he was also helped with his own needs and growth.
I find Chaput more pastoral in his approach and style. That is huge in my book. We need more ‘pastors’ at the top of the cleric ranks who really understand the people. After all, the Gospel is designed for the people, not the leadership. (We all remember what Jesus said about the religious leaders, right?)
In his early remarks of July, almost immediately following the announcement from the Vatican, he stated, “I’m a poor actor. What you see is pretty much what you get.“
I sure pray so. What would the world be like if this actually is true? What would the Archdiocese of Philadelphia be like? Could we even imagine a place where Catholics of all sorts – in fact, all humans of all sorts - don’t hate one another or spread division, but love and stand united in their common and shared apostolic tradition? Where all are welcomed…just like Jesus mandated?
Chaput reminisced during an interview:
“Back in 2005, Cardinal Rigali very kindly asked me to visit Philadelphia and speak to the priests of the archdiocese. In my comments, I remember using a remark from the scientist Niels Bohr, who said “prediction is difficult – especially about the future.” I thought it was a pretty clever line six years ago. Today I just find it a bit sobering.”
I am sobered, too. And, yes, I agree…prediction about the future is very difficult. But my own Archbishop, ++Julius Licata, is a Franciscan and so I know firsthand of the genuineness of the cloth from which they are cut; the goodness they reach for, and the warmth of their hearts. So, I have hope today that things will change. And, if it means anything, I am praying very strongly for Archbishop Charles Chaput. I am also praying for all of us. I will hope that he is praying for me, too.
So Jim continues the charade - that he is a person of substance, that he is someone who has something to say and that he is a Catholic priest the same way...that Chaput is. He will find that Chaput will "disappoint" him and, in doing so, will yet again reinforce his (perceived) victimhood in the eyes of his cult members. Watch and wait - there will be another Jimmy St. George story on the horizon - this time about Jimmy and Chaput.... Which is the whole point of this lunacy and Jim's sad, twisted and evil existence.
Every sentence is a gem - enjoy his evil spewings...
I was interviewed recently by the National Lesbian Gay Journalism Association’s (NLGJA), Nicolaas Kopper, regarding the upcoming installation of Archbishop Charles Chaput, soon to be the new leader of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
For 21 years, NLGJA has drawn journalists, public relations professionals, and media industry leaders together for its annual convention. The 2011 National Convention & 8th Annual LGBT Media Summit came to Philadelphia this past week. Over the course of a few short days, more than 300 attendees had the unique opportunity to participate in top-level training sessions, thought-provoking discussions, and social & professional networking events. I was honored to be part of this process.
As I spoke with Nic during my interview time, it occurred to me that my thinking, very much the lives of His Eminence, Justin Cardinal Rigali, and now incoming Archbishop Charles Chaput, has two primary tracks of thought: hope and fear. Once I uncovered how my own mind was working, it became clearer what I wanted to say during this dialogue.
You see, with any major change in leadership you have two primary, and almost antagonistic emotions. Hope: that a new voice and leadership style will be like a breath of fresh air and bring a new cohesion and direction to the team. And, fear, that other ‘things’ may be uncovered; that still others will remain unchanged, or, worse, that a new leader will be somehow ‘shoddier’ than the last.
In my thinking on the upcoming installation of Archbishop Chaput, I find that - much like my thinking - both men came from two very different paths and perhaps this can be a strong indicator of things to come. If so, then hope will win in this quandary.
You see, Cardinal Rigali was basically born in Rome. (Well, it was actually in Los Angeles, but you get my point.) I think, though, that being born in large US city and then being ordained and almost immediately sent off to Rome – where he studied canon law and held a secretariat – certainly changed his worldview. He never really pastored a parish where the broken and marginalized come, he never served with other priests on ‘the front lines’ where ministry actually happens daily and where the pain of life is so easily felt. In fact, by the 70’s, Rigali was already a Monsignor and was globetrotting with the then current Pontiff, accompanying JP2 wherever he traveled. So, in reality, Rigali served at the Vatican until the 90’s when he was then appointed as Bishop of St Louis. (Yes, another large metropolitan area, and yes another position of power.) Finally, in 2003, he became the 8th bishop of Philadelphia and then was elevated to Cardinal.
Paradoxically, Archbishop Charles Chaput was on quite a different path.
Chaput was born in the proverbial and perhaps disambiguos (A great Wiki term!) mid-Western United States, in Kansas.
He became a Franciscan. In fact, a Capuchin, whose hallmarks are a more contemplative life-style coupled with a stricter observance of poverty. They were originally persecuted and always strive to live as ‘brothers among brothers’, committed to prayer and a strong fraternal life. And while the older eremitical idea have been abandoned, their life is to be one of extreme austerity, simplicity, and poverty—in all things as near an approach to St Francis’ idea as is practicable.
Chaput was ordained in the ’70’s and then began to help others with spiritual direction and theology. Then, (unlike Cardinal Rigali) he became a pastor of a parish where he lived within a community that needed him. And, perhaps, where he was also helped with his own needs and growth.
I find Chaput more pastoral in his approach and style. That is huge in my book. We need more ‘pastors’ at the top of the cleric ranks who really understand the people. After all, the Gospel is designed for the people, not the leadership. (We all remember what Jesus said about the religious leaders, right?)
In his early remarks of July, almost immediately following the announcement from the Vatican, he stated, “I’m a poor actor. What you see is pretty much what you get.“
I sure pray so. What would the world be like if this actually is true? What would the Archdiocese of Philadelphia be like? Could we even imagine a place where Catholics of all sorts – in fact, all humans of all sorts - don’t hate one another or spread division, but love and stand united in their common and shared apostolic tradition? Where all are welcomed…just like Jesus mandated?
Chaput reminisced during an interview:
“Back in 2005, Cardinal Rigali very kindly asked me to visit Philadelphia and speak to the priests of the archdiocese. In my comments, I remember using a remark from the scientist Niels Bohr, who said “prediction is difficult – especially about the future.” I thought it was a pretty clever line six years ago. Today I just find it a bit sobering.”
I am sobered, too. And, yes, I agree…prediction about the future is very difficult. But my own Archbishop, ++Julius Licata, is a Franciscan and so I know firsthand of the genuineness of the cloth from which they are cut; the goodness they reach for, and the warmth of their hearts. So, I have hope today that things will change. And, if it means anything, I am praying very strongly for Archbishop Charles Chaput. I am also praying for all of us. I will hope that he is praying for me, too.
9.7.2011 | 8:58pm
Davey Crockett says:
Hmmm....
Let's examine the record here, shall we?
Why was he "denied ordination" by the Episcopal Church? Well...it starts with the fact that he forged his way into the Virginia Theological Seminary. His parish priest refused to recommend him, Jim stole stationery, forged his name and used the forged letter to get into VTU. And ends there.
As for the Roman Catholic Church...he never even graduated from Gannon. So there. The fact that he is profoundly narcissistic and suffering from multiple personality disorders might have something to do with it, too (and evil, too). And yes...he never graduated from college. So he got into Howard on false pretenses (but that's another story).
As for the Antioch Church....I think Kera Hamilton's take on Jim says it all - that he showed "an arrogance that is beyond all comprehension" when he taught at CHC. Seems that she knows Jimmy pretty well and pretty much nails why he wasn't ordained.
And notice I didn't bring up the fact that he is a convicted felon (for stealing from old ladies)....
Here is our buddy....
All I know is that I love being a priest! I revel in what I can do for God. I am far from perfect, but I feel a renewed energy every time I help someone in the Name of God. No, not often in big ways, but in simple ways – almost unnoticeable at times – where they, and I, know that God is truly there. And, I know that I have worked very hard to be a better priest, even in my brokenness. And I know that I could never throw it all away, especially since I was denied ordination not once, but twice – in a process of well over 12 years. Prior to that, I reluctantly left the ordination process in the Roman Church because I could not reject others so easily, nor deny myself. But, I never gave up. So would I give up now?
Let's examine the record here, shall we?
Why was he "denied ordination" by the Episcopal Church? Well...it starts with the fact that he forged his way into the Virginia Theological Seminary. His parish priest refused to recommend him, Jim stole stationery, forged his name and used the forged letter to get into VTU. And ends there.
As for the Roman Catholic Church...he never even graduated from Gannon. So there. The fact that he is profoundly narcissistic and suffering from multiple personality disorders might have something to do with it, too (and evil, too). And yes...he never graduated from college. So he got into Howard on false pretenses (but that's another story).
As for the Antioch Church....I think Kera Hamilton's take on Jim says it all - that he showed "an arrogance that is beyond all comprehension" when he taught at CHC. Seems that she knows Jimmy pretty well and pretty much nails why he wasn't ordained.
And notice I didn't bring up the fact that he is a convicted felon (for stealing from old ladies)....
Here is our buddy....
All I know is that I love being a priest! I revel in what I can do for God. I am far from perfect, but I feel a renewed energy every time I help someone in the Name of God. No, not often in big ways, but in simple ways – almost unnoticeable at times – where they, and I, know that God is truly there. And, I know that I have worked very hard to be a better priest, even in my brokenness. And I know that I could never throw it all away, especially since I was denied ordination not once, but twice – in a process of well over 12 years. Prior to that, I reluctantly left the ordination process in the Roman Church because I could not reject others so easily, nor deny myself. But, I never gave up. So would I give up now?
9.7.2011 | 9:18pm
Rachel Maddow says:
One more thing (for now...)....
Jimmy makes everyone who wants to go to his faux seminary answer the following question...
OTHER
Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other crime? ____________________
If you answered yes to the above question, please attach a separate sheet of paper that gives the approximate date of each incident and explain the circumstances.
Incredible...Something tells me that Jimmy wasn't particularly forthcoming with the Episcopal and Antioch Churches about his...(cough)...indiscretions....did you tell the OCC???
Jimmy makes everyone who wants to go to his faux seminary answer the following question...
OTHER
Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other crime? ____________________
If you answered yes to the above question, please attach a separate sheet of paper that gives the approximate date of each incident and explain the circumstances.
Incredible...Something tells me that Jimmy wasn't particularly forthcoming with the Episcopal and Antioch Churches about his...(cough)...indiscretions....did you tell the OCC???
