Chicago pastors balk at monsignor titles

This sounds a little like sour grapes on the part of this priest. One wonders if his name had been on the list of papal honors, he would still find it "silly" and "shameful". Either way, given the comments this priest wrote in his parish, His Eminence would be absolutely correct in taking some "corrective measures" against Father McQuaid, including removing him from his parish, a position in which he clearly cannot be trusted to perform in accord with the Church.

Moreoever, the monsignoral title is one of those traditions that His Eminence is absolutely correct in bringing back to Chicago. It is a reward for those priests who have served well and diligently, as well as a mark of distinction for those who serve in important posts in the Archdiocese.

Finally, enough with suggesting that the only relevant issue in the Church today is the sexual abuse situation. It is silly and shameful to suggest that the Church should spend all of its time on this, to the detriment of other important matters, including the recognition of the service of some 40 priests in Chicago. The Church has navel-gazed on this issue long enough, it is time to move on and tackle some of the other issues facing us today.

Please do not disturb these aging gentlemen. They are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Leave them to their play.

archdiocesan denials nothwithstanding, I can't imagine getting anything out of Rome without greasing somebody's palm.

The more the Church digs in it's heels about non-essentials, the more space it drives between life and faith.

I am getting tired of reruns: The Emperor's New Clothes over and over again.

It would be immoral to spend such large amounts of money on an 'honor' if this is the case. To what end?

I have many priest friends and cannot imagine one if them accepting this if offered.

But my endorphins are in a happy spin thinking of what they would say over dinner and a bottle of wine!

(will they get a cappa magna to match their new outfits? Is any one tallying up the cost of the new clerical garb?) and women are supposed to be the vain ones who are clothes conscious?

People are dying and the people of God must tolerate such a waste?

Here's another argument against women's ordination. Girls, you want to be part of this?

I applaud Fr. McQuaid and the other Archdiocese of Chicago priests who have commented on the naming of twenty priests as monsignors. If Cardinal George was really sincere in seeking priests’ opinion on naming priests as monsignors, he obviously didn’t take their advice too seriously, since the majority asked him not to submit names to Rome. Although he asked their opinions, he, nevertheless, did what he probably intended to do in the first place. At least, that’s what appears to have happened.

In the “good old days,” in Chicago and undoubtedly in any diocese, pastors of certain parishes would be automatically named monsignors. That was also true for priests holding Chancery and other diocesan offices. In many cases, becoming a monsignor really did not emphasize the priests’ apostolic work, but rather the honorary title was given to a priest who became the pastor of a large parish or to a priest who was a diocesan official such as vicar general or chancellor of the diocese. In my own diocese, I remember hearing a young priest say that he should be a monsignor because he was rector of the seminary. That type of thinking flies in the face of the priest-servant which was emphasized in Vatican II.

It seems to me that if certain criteria were used in determining whose name was sent to Rome, then that criteria, in all fairness, should have been extended to many, many more priests who would meet the criteria. Why limit the honorary title to twenty men? Why not hundreds who also qualify? Cardinal George justifies his decision, saying that the honor belongs to all the priests, not just the individuals who were named monsignor. I doubt very much that the majority of priests feel that way.

Finally, I have a few comments addressed to Clint G. Clint, Fr. McQuaid gave an opinion about the naming of monsignors. He didn’t attack the cardinal, but voiced his opposition to the cardinal’s decision. Secondly, why would the cardinal remove a priest who voiced an opinion? I didn’t see anything in Father’s statement concerning denial of dogma, etc. As a Chicago native, I agree that the greater majority of priests in the Archdiocese have served well and diligently, not just the twenty who were named monsignors.

Fr. McQauid never suggested that “the only relevant issue in the Church today is the sexual abuse scandal.” He rather said to his people that “You might see all this, as I do—as rather silly in light of far more important matters which remain unaddressed.” He then proceeded to use a specific case where church officials in Chicago did not immediately remove a priest from ministry, thus allowing him to continue abusing children. The sexual abuse of children is one example of an important matter because bishops have never accepted responsibility for moving predator priests from parish to parish, thus allowing them to continue to abuse more children. Clint, if your child had been abused, would you really believe that the “Church has navel-gazed on this issue long enough?” I doubt it.

You are right, however, that there are other issues facing the church today. Just to name a few: the ordination of women and optional celibacy. Both are disciplines of the church and do not affect in any way the beliefs (dogma) of the church. Immigration in our country is a major issue. The church also needs to revisit its position on homosexuality, the union of two homosexuals, the use of contraceptives, and masturbation. Isn’t there something ironic in the church’s positions on sexuality and how it responded to the sexual abuse scandal? Homosexuals are “intrinsically disordered,” but priests who sexually abused children were tolerated and protected!

Thank God for priests like Fr. McQuaid and others who are willing to put this issue in the context of the real issues facing the church today.

Monsignor = My Lord = definitely Un-American. Also un-democratic and un-republican.. Royalist though. It's Really a sad display. The correct lay response should be a small smirk and remembering the 'sisters' putting a gold star on the shoes of the teachers pet?

WOW!
Pathetic much?
If McQuaid had just let it fly it would have been no problem and MAYBE he could have done something more essential than wasting everybody's time by self-righteously trying to drive home the same old lame laments. Pay attention to his style: "It is 'expected' that a 'gift' be offered to the Vatican for each title conferred. In the past, I think the 'expected gift' was around $5,000 each. I suspect that now it is probably $8,000-$10,000 each -- of course, we will never know. Again, it's your money!"

"I think", "I suspect", "We will never know", "probably". But it's your money anyways. Way to set an example of fraternity and unity. This reeks of class war and title envy. Sad.