2008 Religious Ed Congress

[stmaria]

The largest Archdiocese in the U.S. and Rome is still silent…

james

I hate to bring this up but this would have never happened before Vatican II. The Bishops were given far too much power at Vatican II. The Pope has his hands tied.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp

The bishop enjoys the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders (cf. Lumen Gentium 26) and as such is head of the local Church, the diocese. A bishop’s authority within his diocese does not operate by delegation: The bishop is not merely exercising a power “borrowed” from the pope. Canon 381 of the Code of Canon Law states: “In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office.” The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church explains:
The pastoral charge . . . is entrusted to [the bishops] fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiff, for they exercise the power that they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern (LG 27).

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The largest Archdiocese in the U.S. and Rome is still silent…

james

Perhaps Rome sees no reason to speak about what happens in Los Angeles.

 

[latinmass]

I hate to bring this up but this would have never happened before Vatican II. The Bishops were given far too much power at Vatican II. The Pope has his hands tied.

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp

The bishop enjoys the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders (cf. Lumen Gentium 26) and as such is head of the local Church, the diocese. A bishop’s authority within his diocese does not operate by delegation: The bishop is not merely exercising a power “borrowed” from the pope. Canon 381 of the Code of Canon Law states: “In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office.” The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church explains:
The pastoral charge . . . is entrusted to [the bishops] fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiff, for they exercise the power that they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern (LG 27).

What you are saying is the Pope has no power over the Bishops, which I do not believe is true. Excommunication is in order for bishops who do not teach the truth of the Church, or who are disobedient. Why not excommunicate a bishop? Bishops are not above excommunication for supporting heretical teachings. Afraid of schism is the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard for not doing what is right. Souls are lost daily because the Pope wants to appease evil, so as to not to have a schism? Excommunicate, or change V2 rhetoric, so as the Pope and Bishops will teach the truth always and defend the Deposit of Faith, and if schism happens for the truth, His will be done.

 

[bear06]

His will be done.

His will might just be to avoid the schism of 1,000s of uneducated Catholic in the LA diocese. I’ve seen it in my own diocese. It’s one thing to retire a bishop and one thing to remove a bishop. It’s an unfortunate situation (and I wish he was taken out before he devloped such a following) but I think that Rome is taking pity on those who were mislead under Cardinal Mahoney’s reign. People love him and it’s sad to say but removing him before his retirement and replacing him would probably bring on a huge revolt of the new bishop. Some might say “Who cares?” but I think that would be even more uncharitable than Cardinal Mahoney leading these souls astray.