Humor Mr. Magoo by Jeffrey Miller January 25, 2007 written by Jeffrey Miller January 25, 2007 Paul Nichols has outdone himself with his latest. I once wrote a post called Conversion and Mr. Magoo since I associate my conversion with with his blind blunders ending up in the right place. 14 comments 0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest Jeffrey Miller previous post Simple procedure next post Anglicans contributing to Christian unity You may also like Poetic Justice January 16, 2004 Pentecost Cake May 15, 2016 Rosary Belts May 16, 2008 Random Thought August 1, 2003 Separated at Birth? July 7, 2004 When the Pope calls May 7, 2015 The Pope's new title? November 29, 2006 Random Thoughts December 14, 2002 Atheist Pride Week Part 2 March 23, 2011 PETA Mistakenly Targets Alaska Church November 25, 2006 14 comments Fr. Dave Kozak December 31, 1969 - 7:00 pm JaneC,(and others) I am APPALLED at your lack of respect for our pastors-the Bishops of the US. You set up one as a punching bag and the butt of your juvenile ridicule. Learn obedience to the shepherds to whom Christ has entrusted His Church! As a person-unworthy as I may be -who shares in the Sacrament of Holy Orders with Bishop Skylstad-I say to you SHOW SOME RESPECT. Fr. Dave Reply Hoodlum January 25, 2007 - 8:54 pm Speaking of making it up as you go along, Tom Cruise is the next Jesus http://www.wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=1825 Reply Panda Rosa January 25, 2007 - 9:45 pm Hee hee, it’s always good to see Mr. Magoo again, even in this context. I say this knowing I don’t know what the Latin means. Even a blind hog finds an acorn. Reply JaneC January 25, 2007 - 10:08 pm I haven’t seen an image of Mr. Magoo in so long that at first I thought this was a caricature of Bishop Skylstad (president of the USCCB). He does kind of look like that–short, bald, and spineless. Reply Aaron Converse January 26, 2007 - 7:35 am Father…with all respect (seriously), do you mean that it is the PERSONS of the bishops which are meant to be respected, or the OFFICE of bishop? If the first, then you are right to say that insofar as we do not treat them as being in the image of God, we are falling short. If you are speaking of the office, then don’t you think that respect should be extended to the individual (at least to some extent) linked to the extent that he practices his office with charity, obedience, and fortitude? To some extent, this issue burns on the minds of many Catholics because (1) we try to defend Church teachings, and implement these (often, alas, very poorly) in our daily lives, and yet (2) get little to no encouragement from our pastors and bishops? Father: there are far too many priests and bishops who ignore (or even contradict) Church teachings; who ignore that which seems inconvenient; who do not want to ‘rock the boat’, or wish to cling to failed bromides and liturgical approaches. And even more than this: there are VERY few priests who are willing to speak against their fellow priests when these failings (yes, failings) are known. Honestly…if, when I was in the process of converting to Christianity, I had been more aware of the widespread failings of the pastors, I would probably never have looked to the Catholic Church. I would have looked to churches which were far less afraid to proclaim the moral teachings of the Bible. My ignorance, I guess, was a gift, for it has allowed me to find my true home on earth. But please do not be too uncharitable with us when our frustration boils over; we are mocked by the world for defending and adhering to Church teachings, and then mocked by far too many within the Church for holding that these beliefs are, in fact, the unchanging revelation of the Three-in-One who are Holy. Please, Father, pray for us… Reply Cleopas January 26, 2007 - 3:31 pm At first I wasn’t sure if it was McBrien but when I read dissenting priests I knew it was him. Reply Fr. Dave Kozak January 26, 2007 - 5:41 pm Dear All, I guess Jesus messed up when He chose a traitor like Judas to be an Apostle and build His Church on the less than firm rock named Peter. Have a heart and don’t be so self-righteous in judging your clergy. The Pope is not the only pastor of the Church worthy of respect and obedience. God bless you and instill a true Ecclesial sense of respect and Charity toward all in God’s Church. Pax et Bonum! Fr. Dave Reply paul zummo January 26, 2007 - 6:30 pm don’t be so self-righteous Hmmmm. Yes indeed. Reply Melody January 26, 2007 - 11:28 pm When I first read this person’s cartoons, I laughed at many but they also bothered me at some level I couldn’t enunciate. So when the Father Dave posted his comments, I mused over it for a while. I think that the answer lays in the fact that the cartoons are not merely a criticism of the church hierarchy, but an outright mockery, subjecting members of the hierarchy to public scorn. I think it is proper that the laity police themselves to some extent, and I do think think there needs to be a more comprehensive response to the widespread concerns, but avoiding actions which damage the position of the church and traditional and respected role of the priesthood in society. I think most of Jeff’s comments on this blogs succeed in criticing individual priests rather than disrespecting the priesthood, but there is a difficult line to be observed and not crossed. Reply Jeff Miller January 26, 2007 - 11:37 pm Melody, That is one thing I try to do – though I am sure that I have not always succeeded. I try to point out problematic theology or actions only, and to never make any personal attacks besides calling someone a dissenter. The cartoon though I think is pretty generic since it addresses only dissenting priests. It does not point out any specific person out and the only ones that might be offended by the cartoon seems to me would be those who liturgically dissent. The cartoon simply makes the point that even though we have the documents that spell out how the liturgy is to be performed – some on their own will decide they can do otherwise. To point this out is not to disrespect the priesthood, but those who disrespect the liturgy and the rights of the laity to go to a Mass that is in conformance with the liturgical guidelines of the Church. In many cases it is the rights of the laity that ends up getting disrespected. Reply Fr. Dave Kozak January 27, 2007 - 9:30 am Jeff, When I studied canon law ,we were taught that the Bishop is the moderator of the Liturgy in his particular diocese. It would do well for the laity to focus on tasks that are specific to them such as political involvement and the evangelization of culture rather policing areas well attended to by ordained ministers. God bless! Fr. Dave Reply Jeff Miller January 27, 2007 - 12:05 pm Fr. Kozak, If only they were “well attended to.” A Mass performed faithfully to liturgical guidelines is the exception not the rule. It doesn’t take much reading or listening to Catholic radio to hear of thousands of incidences of liturgical abuses. Books like Mass Confusion didn’t become best sellers because the laity normally found the liturgy will attended to. My own parish is one of those wonderful exceptions, but when I go to any of a dozen other churches in my Diocese, which does have a good solid bishop, I encounter scores of liturgical abuses. Across the country we have many diocese where particular bishops and other clergy have decided that they will just totally ignore the fact that the indult for extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion purifying the vessels was revoked. When we see such fragrant abuse are we just to ignore it and attend to other matters? You mentioned canon law and under canon law the laity do have recourse to these liturgical abuses. First by addressing the persons involved, and if not satisfied by the response recourse to their bishop and the Vatican if necessary. It is not a either/or situation for the laity where we concentrate on the tasks normally specific for us. The liturgy is the property of the whole Church and the laity are not suppose to just grin and bear it with those who make up their own rubrics. When priests as a rule obediently follow liturgical guidelines then this is one area the laity will certainly love not be involved in. I would love just to be mainly involved in prayer support of our clergy and the evangelization of living a holy life instead of also occasionally having to bring up some abuse to one of the members of the clergy. Reply seminarian January 27, 2007 - 12:54 pm I seem to recall St. Catherine of Siena (obviously not a member of the clergy) told the pope that it was proper for him to rule from Rome, not Avingon. Can anyone verify this? Reply Jeff Miller January 27, 2007 - 12:57 pm Seminarian, St. Catherine revealed to the Pope his promise he had made that he would return the Papacy to Rome. The promise he had made was internal and thus unknown to anyone. Reply Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.