I don’t see how her actions respect the Bishop’s. Letters, private meetings, yes…calling them out publically, no.No. By putting her grief in the public realm Judie Brown is meeting the bishops on turf of where the rubber of the gospel meets the road of faithful Chrisitian discipleship.
“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious.” ~ Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, address to the Supreme Convention of the Knights of Columbus on 6/72.
According to this article, the Pope would welcome her public complaint:I don’t see how her actions respect the Bishop’s. Letters, private meetings, yes…calling them out publically, no.
If she wanted to be consistent, she should call out Pope Benedict XVI. She should reprimand him for not holding his bishops accountable.
Of the many attacks against the Catholic Church today, most all come from members within the Church. In fact, reports from Rome indicate that the Pope is isolated and resisted at the Vatican. Phil Lawler of Catholic World News translates Italian journalist Ignazio Ingrao as saying. “The Pontiff has faced stiff resistance in his effort to reform the Roman Curia and to broaden access to the traditional Mass.”[1]
To add to the Pope’s suffering there is the gravity of scandal caused by a large majority of U.S. Cardinals and Bishops who aid and abet hundreds of U.S. ‘Catholic’ politicians, both Democrat and Republican, in their support of abortion while continuing sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion.
lifeissues.net/writers/kra/kra_46pleaforthepope.htmlBecause the Pope has no prisons for disobedient hierarchy, the Catholic faithful have no other recourse than to write en masse to the Pope regarding out-of-control U.S. bishops such as Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington.
I think it is mentioned elsewhere,but isn’t there canon law involved in terms of receiving Communion?Rome has made the point of not saying what must be done in each case; in fact, Rome did a pretty good job of not saying that there should be any carte blanche denial of Communion.
** SNIP **
And I think a whole lot of Cathiolics might be better off following the Gospel mandates of prayer and taking care of the poor (and I don’t mean that as simply an economic issue) than trying to second guess every decision the bishops make, most particularly when they don’t even know what is actually going on.
I would hazard a guess that you don’t have the first idea of what nay given bishop, let alone the whole group of bishops in the US are doing about abortion. I know mine is actively opposed to it and doing his best to support pro-life groups in pryaer, economically, and in physical presence at pro-life gatherings, as well as in lobbying our state legislators. And I only see the public part of what he does.We can pray, take care of the poor AND be outraged at the lack of action regarding abortion on the part of the Bishops. This is causing scandal in the Church in the true meaning of the word. Many Catholics casually consider themselves pro-choice now.
As a matter of fact, the Church through its bishops is and has been very much open about keeping morals in the political realm. It is just that you seem to be determining that the only valid way to put decisions concerning morals in the political realm is to publicly deny Communion tot he likes of Kerry.I see that you have the makings of a political strategist …let’s keep Church decisions regarding faith and morals and avoiding scandal out of the political realm, i.e., faithfulness trumps political expediency.
And just what do we expect to be the result if the Bishops would do what Judi demands? I can tell you that in this country the support for abortion and politicians who support it would skyrocket. Those lovely politicians would become the “underdogs” and Americans love underdogs. The Bishops understand quite well in my opinion what will get the result they want and what will in the short and probably long term be counter productive. There may be some Bishops who are dummies, but I think probably very few.
Let me give you all a real life example.Yes, that strategy really seems to be working. Please see the results of the last election as proof.
My apologies, I should have said ‘some’ or ‘many’ Bishops who are doing very little.I would hazard a guess that you don’t have the first idea of what nay given bishop, let alone the whole group of bishops in the US are doing about abortion. I know mine is actively opposed to it and doing his best to support pro-life groups in pryaer, economically, and in physical presence at pro-life gatherings, as well as in lobbying our state legislators. And I only see the public part of what he does.
On June 18, 2004, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared that decisions on giving or denying “Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life” “rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles.” In support, they stated simply that “**ishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.”
The bishops do have individual authority to determine prudent pastoral action, but that does not absolve them of their sacred duty to uphold and to apply canon law and to follow the Pope. The authority of the bishops “must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope” (The Cathecism of the Catholic Church, Section 895). The bishops have “no authority unless united with the [Pope], Peter’s successor, as its head” (Cathecism 883).
Pope John Paul II was unequivocal in Ecclesia de Eucharista: "*n cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.” (Emphasis added.)
Since she made not direct charge to a particular Bishop, her apology in private is inherently difficult and it may appear her only option is public. However, if I were in her shoes, I’d go to confession, write a private letter of apology to the Bishops, and if asked in public about her previous statements, I’d say I regret what I previously said. If pushed on if I still thinks that Communion should be denied, I’d only say that my opinion is not important here. Bishops are charged with the difficult decision in this matter and I pray that they discern the desires of the Holy Spirit.I would like to ask a question to those who disagree with Judie Brown’s tactics:
If tomorrow she wakes up and says to herself, “Gee, maybe what I did was a mistake. I should apologise to the Bishops.”
Does she have to do this privately or publicly?
I find your post troubling. First, you seem to publicly accuse her of objective sin? That would be a mistake. These are prudential matters. What evidence do you have she objectively sinned?Since she made not direct charge to a particular Bishop, her apology in private is inherently difficult and it may appear her only option is public. However, if I were in her shoes, I’d go to confession, write a private letter of apology to the Bishops, and if asked in public about her previous statements, I’d say I regret what I previously said. If pushed on if I still thinks that Communion should be denied, I’d only say that my opinion is not important here. Bishops are charged with the difficult decision in this matter and I pray that they discern the desires of the Holy Spirit.
IMHO, for her to make an overt public act to repudiate her previous letter, it would be percieved that she is only repudiating it for political reasons just as her first statement is percieved. What is exclusively the decision of the Bishops needs to stay with the Bishops. Laity need to stay quiet so when pastoral decisions are made they are percieved as pastoral decisions and not political.
Of course.What is exclusively the decision of the Bishops needs to stay with the Bishops.
Yes, like little children we need to implicitly trust the wisdom and intention of those bishops who allow scandal to fester and grow – not. It was this exact duct tape passivity and indifference which contributed to the Church sex scandal. Respect the office of the bishp, but challenge the actions or lack of in an appropriate, respectful but expectant manner, be it private or public. Enough of a marshmallow Church that fails to give a compelling witness to the truth of the gospel – this is the real scandal at hand.Laity need to stay quiet so when pastoral decisions are made they are percieved as pastoral decisions and not political.
I agree. However, unlike the sex abuse scandal, it is not like there hasn’t been a public debate and lay expression on the issue. Judi Brown just didn’t like the decision of the Bishops so she decided to ratchet it up by using inappropriate accusations, judgments regarding motive, and caricatures (See post 29).Of course.
Yes, like little children we need to implicitly trust the wisdom and intention of those bishops who allow scandal to fester and grow – not. It was this exact duct tape passivity and indifference which contributed to the Church sex scandal. Respect the office of the bishp, but challenge the actions or lack of in an appropriate, respectful but expectant manner, be it private or public. Enough of a marshmallow Church that fails to give a compelling witness to the truth of the gospel – this is the real scandal at hand.
I would like to ask a question to those who disagree with Judie Brown’s tactics:
If tomorrow she wakes up and says to herself, “Gee, maybe what I did was a mistake. I should apologise to the Bishops.”
Does she have to do this privately or publicly?
For Pete’s sake, will you just read my response in context. The question to which I responded was that Judi woke up and determined that it was a mistake to attack the Bishops in public or that maybe her statement was ill-communicated by having inappropriate comparisons or that she was wrong in believing that she should weigh in on the pastoral decision. Child of Mary was not clear on whether it was one of the above or another reason for it being a mistake. I don’t think it important that she be more clear.I find your post troubling. First, you seem to publicly accuse her of objective sin? That would be a mistake. These are prudential matters. What evidence do you have she objectively sinned?
As for staying quiet that too is a prudential matter in this case. Respect and charity are critical, but that too is often a matter of opinion considering how so many are hypersensitive these days due to incorrectly formed consciences.
I offer this for more discussion as well:
beta1.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=100