There is no absolute certainty that an individual is corrupted by a high salary. Obviously, the risks of corruption are considerably higher, but it would be mistaken to assume it without definite corroborative evidence. It is not a sin to receive a high salary.
The sin is not to have but to be attached to it. Hence the virtue of Detachment. Nevertheless money has a habit of clinging to a person ; we are men not angels. Money in our fallen state tend to cling to us like mud to a stone. If we were angels things would be different. But we are poor fallen men and so Jesus said 'It is harder fro a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle . This is why He said to the Rich young man, 'If you would be perfect, sell all that you have...' Not that riches in themselves are evil, but that attachment to riches are a very great evil and the two almost invariably go together. If we were angels this would not be so. But we are, none of us, angels.
You are correct. But in an organization such as the Knights of Columbus, the local members will go to great lengths to raise funds through parish breakfasts, barbeques, bake sales, etc., it does seem somewhat obscene that exorbitant salaries are given to the top of the pyramid. Yes, I am aware that there is a large Forbes 1000 angle to the KOC due to the insurance side of the club. My husband has been a knight for 25 years and their service to the community and their parishes is legion. But I object to the notion that their annual dues and hard work is rarely given financial aid from the top. Please someone correct me if I am wrong. That money appears to be meted out to the senior officers. Is it more of an insurance company or a Catholic apostolate as intended by Father Michael McGivney? I have no problem with the insurance side as we have purchased policies from them. But the high salaries of the top beaurocrats rankles me because I don't ever hear of the local field agents getting rich.
I don't think anyone in a Church-related job should make an exorbitant salary, especially one that revolves around charity. There is just no need. You can find very able people to do that job for a tenth the price. This is not a private company out to make a profit.
They are guessing that Cardinal Cupich will replace Cardinal Wuerl. I thought that Bishop McElroy was ear marked for that job. Maybe he'll step into Cardinal Cupich's shoes? They ruled out Tobin because of potential scandals but I don't think that avoiding scandal is on the Pope's list of priorities - it hasn't stopped him proceeeding with the agenda so far.
Employees of the Church should be paid a fair salary commensurate with the job they are doing. It shouldn't be either top or bottom of the range but somewhere between the two. I imagine that the correct rate would be determined by doing a comparison with similar positions. If the employee holds an executive post in a Church charity, then the comparison would be with executives running similar charities. If the job entails managing an insurance company, then the comparison should be with insurance companies run by other non-profits or with similar sized insurance companies or financial institutions in the private sector.
I agree Dolours...on all counts. The only thing that Pope Francis is consistent on is that he is inconsistent. He says one thing to have the flock believe that he is going to correct whatever issue is at hand, then he goes on to make appointments that defy his own “professed” concern or personal opinion. His stated policy of “zero tolerance “defies his actions. He does this repeadly....and continues to confuse everyone...is this intentional? He gets the headlines for making a bold, strong stand against the scandal of the day, yet when given the opportunity to clean up whatever current abuse at hand, he simply ignores the facts and acts counter to making clerical appointments that would/ could possibly remedy the problem. In my observation, he has surrounded himself with the clerics who have been the problem...and who are acting in their own self interest to shield themselves and their underlings. Knowing that he can do as he wants...as he controls the Vatican, and to a degree the narrative, he simply continues to say one thing and do the opposite. Who in his inner circle that controls the establishment will defy him...or would want to if he is protecting their interest. Not sure if he and his minions have announced the names of the so called “creditable Catholic news sources “ that the Vatican was purposing to release, but if they do release a list, I’d certainly look at those new sources as ones that are shield for his agenda....and personally dismiss them as “credible”. Fortunately, the internet is now available to disseminate stories to the lay folks that had been hidden and covered up for decades. The Vatican can throw out a list of their supportive news outlets, but they cannot control the options that we now can access what formally they could hide. This crisis might have been adverted if first they had done their job....second, if the masses had access to the truth, it could have been dealt with decades ago. But in reality, they never wanted the truth out...and in spite of the truth being revealed even now, they are not acting in good faith to remedy anything. They either cover up, or shut up...or as the pope himself said referring to the Vigano disclosure....” I’m saying nothing”. So if he is “saying nothing” the vacuum is open for anyone...and thankfully, the faithful laypeople are speaking out!
There are many important topics discussed during EWTN's nightly news in the following video (many of which have been discussed on various threads on MOG today),
I don't know much about Bill Donahue. One of my heroes, the late Nat Hentoff, had great time for him, that little I know. I just don't like the idea that he is being condemned as unquestionably corrupt merely because he receives a large salary. Even if we disagree with his views, he might well have perfectly good reasons for holding them. It is alleged that his high salary is an indicator that he has been 'bought'. Perhaps. However, large salaries are often given to people in positions of trust and responsibility to ensure that they are less likely to be bought. I'd like to see some hard evidence against Donahue before throwing him under the bus.
The man who pays the money plays the tune. Like the organ grinder and the monkey. If we heard sometime who was running, say , for high political office and heard that he was being financed by say International Communism, or Planned Parenthood we would be right to be concerned that they were financing him in order that he might progress their very own agenda. Similiarly with Bill Donohue and Cardinal Wuerl . Wuerl is the organ grinder and it would be perfectly reasonable to suppose that Bill Donohue is the monkey dancing to his tune. If he doesn't dance to the right tune he won't get paid. I think it unreasonable and illogical to suppose that someone like Cardinal Wuerl is forking out half a mil a year with no kind of pay back. Life isn't like that. If you want proof simply ask yourself the question ; how often and in what ways has Bill being asking question about McCarrick or Wuerl? The answer will be zero ; zilch; nada. He knows not to bite the hand(s) that are feeding him. This is simply the way things work. The way of the world. Like anyone else Wuerl will expect pay back for his very considerable investment. That's the way things work in the real world.
It is not right to shaft a man's character on a likelihood. I am going to hold off on Donahue until I am presented with evidence.
I’ve heard it speculated that now, because Wuerl has been shown to be lying about knowledge of Mccarricks abuse issues, that possibly the Vatican will appoint Cupich to replace the embattled Wuerl. Further speculation implied that he would not be transferred to Washington, but to Rome, stationed at the Vatican. This places him in a stronger position to be in the running as a potential replacement for Pope Francis.....dear God no..... I hope this hypothesis is wrong. That’s in my view, trading one negative for another. Cupich would in essence, be controlling the American liberal agenda. Horrible if this occurs...and a continuation of the same...if not worse.
This is pretty concerning to consider. I can's imagine it would be even close to the same. Much much worse IMO if you know the history in Chicago.
Forget the Flu spreading....the disease of the soul, that "diabolical disorientation" seems to be everywhere. Then again maybe he'll fit right in! At least now he says he's repudiated such a notion. Anglican Church Appoints Resurrection-Denying Ambassador to Vatican A number of leading Anglicans have urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to recall his new ambassador to the Vatican after learning that he had suggested that Jesus never rose from the dead, a position the ambassador now repudiates. Australian-born Dr. John Shepherd, who was appointed last week as the Church of England’s new delegate to Rome, reportedly delivered a sermon years ago in which he said Christians should be “set free” from the belief in Christ’s bodily resurrection. “It’s important for Christians to be set free from the idea that the resurrection was an extraordinary physical event, which restored to life Jesus’ original body,” Shepherd said in a homily on Easter Sunday 2008, while he was Dean of St George’s Cathedral in Perth. “The resurrection ought not to be seen in physical terms, but as a new spiritual reality,” he said. Members of Anglican leadership questioned the wisdom of naming as ambassador to the Vatican a person who did not share in one of the core beliefs of Christianity, contained in the earliest creeds. The Right Rev. Rod Thomas, Bishop of Maidstone, underscored that Christ’s bodily resurrection is a fundamental Christian belief. For two millennia, Christians have considered the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their belief. “Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain,” Saint Paul famously wrote to the Church at Corinth. “For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised,” Paul continued, “and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” The director of the Church of England’s largest Evangelical group, the Rev. Dr. Lee Gatiss, said he thought the situation was “utterly bizarre and absolutely inappropriate.” He also suggested that if Dr. Shepherd does not share the Church’s belief in the resurrection, he should not have been ordained as a minister in the first place. The Rev. Dr. Ian Paul, a member of the Anglican General Synod, also questioned whether it was prudent to “appoint someone as the Archbishop’s envoy to Rome someone who doesn’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.” But other senior Anglicans have reportedly stood up for Dr. Shepherd, claiming he is an “extremely good theologian” and that many Anglicans share his doubts in the resurrection. A spokesperson for the Archbishop said that the new ambassador is of “good standing” and that the Archbishops had used “due diligence” before appointing him. On Tuesday, however, Dr. Shepherd reacted to the reports, insisting from Rome that he believes in the resurrection like any other Christian. “There has been speculation in the press and on social media about my views on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Part of this is based on a sermon I preached in 2008,” Dr. Shepherd stated. “It is my faith that Jesus rose from the dead and I have never denied the reality of the empty tomb. The risen Christ was not a ghost – he ate and could be touched – but at the same time he appeared in a locked room (John 20. 26) and vanished from sight (Luke 24.31) and he was often not immediately recognized,” he said. “This remains my faith – that Christ is risen indeed,” he said. https://www.breitbart.com/faith/201...f-resurrection-denying-ambassador-to-vatican/
He'll fit right in at the Vatican. "Great theologians" in the mould of Dr. Shepherd are rather popular in today's Vatican. He can pop next door to the Jesuit HQ and he and Fr. Sosa can organise an expedition to find the Apostles' tape recorders. With any luck, they'll also find Mary Magdalene's mobile 'phone showing her selfie with the risen Christ. Then the pair of them can do a St. Thomas impersonation in St. Peter's Square and we'll all live happily ever after. I thought that our hierarchy were in bad shape but it looks like the Anglicans have completely lost the plot - which probably means that inter-Communion is imminent.
I think it more likely that Bishop McElroy will replace Cardinal Wuerl in Washington and be promoted to Cardinal, with Cardinal Cupich replacing Wuerl on the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops which chooses which priests are promoted to the episcopacy. In other words, the spirit of McCarrick will live on in the universal Church until God has had enough and calls a halt to the whole charade. Cardinal Wuerl could turn out to be the least culpable of all of them. The licentious lobby isn't confined to modernists. They just want to incorporate licentiousness into official Church teaching. I expect there are others who are perfectly happy to leave the teaching alone as long as they can do their thing and have everyone turn a blind eye to it.
