American Life League: We Insist Bishops Must Deny Pro-Abortion Politicians Communion

[Orionthehunter]

I read the link in the OP and I know she has a book out. Can you provide a link that shows exactly why you and Ham are concerned? I am not being pedantic, but I would like to see some examples that are seen as unjust?

And I very much want to see a canon lawyer give an opinion on all this.

Fix, we can’t condone something inappropriate because we agree with their position and then use the argument that this is a matter entrusted to the Bishops to restrict positions with which we disagree. We need to be consistent.

You didn’t need a canon lawyer on our other discussions.

While I’m totally supportive of what Judi wants to accomplish (eliminate abortions), she has acted inappropriately. Just read the words closely in the article on life site. They are not words a Catholic should use to characterize a Bishop.

 

[fix]

Fix, we can’t condone something inappropriate because we agree with their position and then use the argument that this is a matter entrusted to the Bishops to restrict positions with which we disagree. We need to be consistent.

But, you start from the premise it is inappropriate. I am unsure about that position. I stated I see it as a prudential matter. You claim it is objectively wrong. I have not seen proof. It may be that we both may hold differing views on such a matter and both be quite valid. You may find her method wrong, but where is the proof your interpretation of this is correct?

You didn’t need a canon lawyer on our other discussions.

I posted canon 212. I ask for an expert to help us see whether her tactics are consistent with that canon or not. Note that canon 915 seems to be interpreted in varying ways as well.

While I’m totally supportive of what Judi wants to accomplish (eliminate abortions), she has acted inappropriately. Just read the words closely in the article on life site. They are not words a Catholic should use to characterize a Bishop.

Again, your opinion. I do not see them as objectively wrong. You may have chosen different words, but that does not mean what she said and how she said it are wrong.

 

[fix]

I went to her website and noted a good priest has endorsed her book. all.org/article.php?id=10921

Should that be seen as wrong?

 

[setter]

Judi Brown’s conduct is just as scandalous and inappropriate as the politicians she demands being denied communion. What is good for hte goose is good for the gander.

This is not a matter of fraternal correction. Fraternal correction is direct and personal. A broad-based “order” to who are not her subordinate but in fact her superior is shocking and not befitting of someone of her influence and position. We depend on her group to advocate for the unborn and not matters of the conduct of Shepherds and Pastors.

Ms. Brown is purposely avoiding personal public confrontation.

Yours comes across as a failed strategy of ignore, appeasement and avoidance and blame those who would hold our bishops accountable.

Over the last four years American Life League has sought, through advertising, public commentary, personal communications, and other means to invite the Catholic bishops of our nation to enforce a particular Church law that deals with the protection of Christ who is truly present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

During the process of our campaign, which is ongoing as I write, some have claimed that our actions are disrespectful of the office of bishop. But these very commentators have not been able to bring to our attention a single statement or phrase that in any way attacks either the office of bishop or a particular bishop by name.

Though our pleas went unanswered, the dilemma remains. On the one hand we have a Church law that is quite specific and on the other hand we have men in authority, capable of enforcing the law and yet hesitant to do so.

 

[fix]

Ms. Brown is purposely avoiding personal public confrontation.

Yours comes across as a failed strategy of ignore, appeasement and avoidance and blame those who would hold our bishops accountable.

Thanks. That is why I asked for examples.

 

[childofmary1143]

Please provide a source for the bolded part. Firstly, how are the bishop’s committing sin? Secondly, where does the Church teach of “public” correction?

Admonishing a sinner is a Spiritual Work of Mercy. Below is the source for it in Catechism although the words instructing and advising are used:

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.

 

[Ham1]

Admonishing a sinner is a Spiritual Work of Mercy. Below is the source for it in Catechism although the words instructing and advising are used:

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.

Where does that say anything about the correction being public? That is what is at issue. I never claimed that the Bishop’s are above correction just that it must be done privately.

 

[childofmary1143]

Thanks but we disagree. I would not assume that she has addressed each Bishop individually on the subject. Further, there is nothing in Church teaching that says we ought to correct them “publically” - privately, yes.

When those outside see the Body of Christ as filled with political factions attempting to manipulate each other it makes the Church look like any other protestant church. It makes it look like we don’t possess the fullness of the Truth. This is a serious diservice to those who are seeking the Truth and have not yet found the Church.

To be honest I don’t really give a darn what Protestants or any non Catholics really think of us. It amazes me how people can lose sight of the horror of abortion to focus on the semantics of what Judie should or shouldn’t do.

When I read these posts it really drives home how much apostasy of the faith there really is.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Ms. Brown is purposely avoiding personal public confrontation.

Yours comes across as a failed strategy of ignore, appeasement and avoidance and blame those who would hold our bishops accountable.

See my below comments. Are you really saying that a Catholic who publicly implies that Bishops hold eagle eggs in higher esteem than the Eucharist, are effectively intentionally allowing the desecration of the Eucharist, and are comparable to the leaders who turned Christ over to Pilate isn’t egregious?

Judi Brown, yourself and myself are not called to “insist” how our Bishops deal with this situation. Call my position what it you want. And you wonder why the Bishops and Pope don’t have the standing with the laity. Whether it be from the right or the left, criticism has a price.

But, you start from the premise it is inappropriate. I am unsure about that position. I stated I see it as a prudential matter. You claim it is objectively wrong. I have not seen proof. It may be that we both may hold differing views on such a matter and both be quite valid. You may find her method wrong, but where is the proof your interpretation of this is correct?

I posted canon 212. I ask for an expert to help us see whether her tactics are consistent with that canon or not. Note that canon 915 seems to be interpreted in varying ways as well.

Again, your opinion. I do not see them as objectively wrong. You may have chosen different words, but that does not mean what she said and how she said it are wrong.

Here are some words from her letter:

“Jesus was surely referring to the “chief priests” when he said to Pilate, “he who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” (John 18:35; 19:11)” Wow, now Judi is a theologian. It looks like she is practicing what some of our non-Catholic Christians do to Scripture.

Then, look at her silly analogy of St. Tarsicus which she employs effectively but decietfully. The mob intended to desecrate the Eucharist. While they are likely in grave sin and are definitely (IMHO) committing grave matter, the intent of the politicians in question have no such intent. But Judi then tries to use this analogy to accuse the Bishops of effective intentional neglect to protect the Eucharist.

We might all believe the Bishops are in error but it is scandalous to accuse them of such intent, especially since she has no direct knowledge of their intent. This itself is an offense against the truth and a grave manner.

Finally, her analogy that the law holds a bald eagle to higher esteem than the Eucharist to imply that this is the same position of our Bishops is so dishonest and scandalous. Frankly, the closer I look at this the more offended I am.

I consider her attack, while cleverly concealed from being overt, is just that an attack on our Shepherds and objectively wrong.

The non-reception of Communion for anyone living outside the Church is to be self-denied by the individual. Why do we insist on our own personal pound of flesh and not just leave it to God? They have been properly informed.

 

[childofmary1143]

Where does that say anything about the correction being public? That is what is at issue. I never claimed that the Bishop’s are above correction just that it must be done privately.

Where does it say it has to be done privately? Can YOU cite any reference to where it specifically says it MUST be done privately?

If you can’t then its just your opinion

 

[Orionthehunter]

Admonishing a sinner is a Spiritual Work of Mercy. Below is the source for it in Catechism although the words instructing and advising are used:

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead.

I guess the Catechism left out the words public admonishment and “ordering” those who don’t accept the instruction and advice to change their ways. I’m sure it will be in the next version of the Catechism. But until then, instruction and advice is a personal and private act and not the same as public admonishment.

Finally, keep in mind, Judi in her own letter talked about all the private efforts she has made to Bishops. But when they failed to do as she so arrogantly believes is the only correct action (despite her not being ordained and such instruction has not be delivered from Rome), she chose to publicly admonish. Whatever happened to our trust that things are to be done not on our time but on God’s time? If the Holy Spirit isn’t calling Bishop’s (even those who have chosen to do so in their own diocese) to publicly admonish the others, who in the heck does she think she is?

And when the act of mercy is delivered uncharitably, it ceases to be an act of mercy. Note in your own quote they are to be “charitable” actions. Public admonishment comparing the Bishops acts to holding a eagle egg in higher esteem than the Eucharist and intending to allow a desecration of the Eucharist is very uncharitable.

 

[childofmary1143]

I guess the Catechism left out the words public admonishment and “ordering” those who don’t accept the instruction and advice to change their ways. I’m sure it will be in the next version of the Catechism. But until then, instruction and advice is a personal and private act and not the same as public admonishment.

Finally, keep in mind, Judi in her own letter talked about all the private efforts she has made to Bishops. But when they failed to do as she so arrogantly believes is the only correct action (despite her not being ordained and such instruction has not be delivered from Rome), she chose to publicly admonish. Whatever happened to our trust that things are to be done not on our time but on God’s time? If the Holy Spirit isn’t calling Bishop’s (even those who have chosen to do so in their own diocese) to publicly admonish the others, who in the heck does she think she is?

The Spiritual works of mercy may be phrased differently but never replaced. To say we should wait for the next Catechism is ridiculous.

Judie Brown doesn’t need to be ordained to articulate Catholic teaching and esp. Canon law. How many Canon lawyers are there that aren’t Priests, Bishops or Cardinals?

Finally abortion is an unspeakable HOLOCAUST. It is so horrible that one doesn’t have to be catholic to understand how bad it is and one who is Catholic may understand it so well as to want to stop it over and above what our faith COMMANDS us to do. Should Judie Brown be made to feel bad because she understands this atrocity so well?

 

[Orionthehunter]

The Spiritual works of mercy may be phrased differently but never replaced. To say we should wait for the next Catechism is ridiculous.

Judie Brown doesn’t need to be ordained to articulate Catholic teaching and esp. Canon law. How many Canon lawyers are there that aren’t Priests, Bishops or Cardinals?

Finally abortion is an unspeakable HOLOCAUST. It is so horrible that one doesn’t have to be catholic to understand how bad it is and one who is Catholic may understand it so well as to want to stop it over and above what our faith COMMANDS us to do. Should Judie Brown be made to feel bad because she understands this atrocity so well?

I was being sarcastic. The Catechism will not be changed to strike out the word “charitable” and add in public admonishment and ordering to those who reject advice and instruction given.

How protestant to conclude that a lay person is competent to instruct a Bishop on how to do his job. Bishops are the primary teachers of the faith in their diocese. This too is Church law and articulated in the Catechism. Who appointed Judi as the “super Bishop” to “insist” all the Bishops in the US conform to her wishes? I must have missed the press release from the Vatican.

Oh, now I get it. The ends justify the means. Judi Brown is authorized to commit actions not normally allowed because of the righteousness of her cause. Now we are justifying the same argument the radical Muslim’s are using in Iraq.

 

[childofmary1143]

I was being sarcastic. The Catechism will not be changed to strike out the word “charitable” and add in public admonishment and ordering to those who reject advice and instruction given.

How protestant to conclude that a lay person is competent to instruct a Bishop on how to do his job. Bishops are the primary teachers of the faith in their diocese. This too is Church law and articulated in the Catechism. Who appointed Judi as the “super Bishop” to “insist” all the Bishops in the US conform to her wishes? I must have missed the press release from the Vatican.

Oh, now I get it. The ends justify the means. Judi Brown is authorized to commit actions not normally allowed because of the righteousness of her cause. Now we are justifying the same argument the radical Muslim’s are using in Iraq.

It certainly doesn’t take a Bishop to know that abortion is a sin and not to fight it is against Canon Law.

Bishops are supposed to be the primary teachers of the faith in their diocese. Being a Bishop doesn’t mean that they have lost their free will to decline to not be teachers. Tell me how the Bishops can be teaching about the horror of abortion when they don’t?

I am offended that you would compare Judie Brown’s actions to murderers in Iraq.

 

[mrteachersir]

In one issue of This Rock (March '98), the instance of Honorius and Callistus is mentioned. In this instance, Honorius, much like Judie, is publicly reprimanding his superior, Pope Callistus I. In his criticism, Honorius claims that Callistus upheld orthodoxy only to save face with Honorius. If that is true, than public admonishment upheld Catholic orthodoxy, and the Spirit protected His Church from error.

If the bishops ‘cave’ to public opinion, yet uphold Church law and help in bringing about abortion, how is this bad? We can criticize Judie for playing the public hand, but what about the lax bishops who are, for all intents and purposes, forcing this hand to be played? All it would take is one bishop, just one, to publicly refuse the Body and Blood to a pro-death celebrity, and this little thread is over.

 

[childofmary1143]

In one issue of This Rock (March '98), the instance of Honorius and Callistus is mentioned. In this instance, Honorius, much like Judie, is publicly reprimanding his superior, Pope Callistus I. In his criticism, Honorius claims that Callistus upheld orthodoxy only to save face with Honorius. If that is true, than public admonishment upheld Catholic orthodoxy, and the Spirit protected His Church from error.

If the bishops ‘cave’ to public opinion, yet uphold Church law and help in bringing about abortion, how is this bad? We can criticize Judie for playing the public hand, but what about the lax bishops who are, for all intents and purposes, forcing this hand to be played? All it would take is one bishop, just one, to publicly refuse the Body and Blood to a pro-death celebrity, and this little thread is over.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[Orionthehunter]

It certainly doesn’t take a Bishop to know that abortion is a sin and not to fight it is against Canon Law.

Bishops are supposed to be the primary teachers of the faith in their diocese. Being a Bishop doesn’t mean that they have lost their free will to decline to not be teachers. Tell me how the Bishops can be teaching about the horror of abortion when they don’t?

I am offended that you would compare Judie Brown’s actions to murderers in Iraq.

Bishops are the primary teachers and they have the authority to determine the best way to teach. Judi Brown does not have such authority and she deserves to be blasted for her usurption of the Bishops authority. For all you know, they may have chosen a different approach to these in-error politicians. They do not have to do what the self-appointed super Bishop or Pope Judi Brown thinks.

I didn’t compare Judi Brown to the murderers in Iraq. I compared your justification of her behavior the righteousness of her cause to being the same argument they use to justify what they do in Iraq.

No matter how grievous and atrocious abortion is, it does not justify using illicit means to further our cause. We don’t condone murdering abortion practitioners and we don’t condone using illicit accusations against our Bishops to force them to take action we deem appropriate.

From childofmary: Finally abortion is an unspeakable HOLOCAUST. It is so horrible that one doesn’t have to be catholic to understand how bad it is and one who is Catholic may understand it so well as to want to stop it over and above what our faith COMMANDS us to do. Should Judie Brown be made to feel bad because she understands this atrocity so well?

 

[setter]

See my below comments. Are you really saying that a Catholic who publicly implies that Bishops hold eagle eggs in higher esteem than the Eucharist, are effectively intentionally allowing the desecration of the Eucharist, and are comparable to the leaders who turned Christ over to Pilate isn’t egregious?

Judi Brown, yourself and myself are not called to “insist” how our Bishops deal with this situation. Call my position what it you want. And you wonder why the Bishops and Pope don’t have the standing with the laity. Whether it be from the right or the left, criticism has a price.

The Church laity are called to hold accountable the Church leadership to protect the integrity of the faith. You and similar others seem overly concerned about protecting, buffering and cowering to the ineffectual leadership of those lagging shepherds who give rise to scandal for Flock entrusted to their care. The reason that many bishops do not have the standing with the laity is because of their lack or orthodoxy and/or courage, IMHO.

 

[childofmary1143]

Bishops are the primary teachers and they have the authority to determine the best way to teach. Judi Brown does not have such authority and she deserves to be blasted for her usurption of the Bishops authority. For all you know, they may have chosen a different approach to these in-error politicians. They do not have to do what the self-appointed super Bishop or Pope Judi Brown thinks.

I didn’t compare Judi Brown to the murderers in Iraq. I compared your justification of her behavior the righteousness of her cause to being the same argument they use to justify what they do in Iraq.

No matter how grievous and atrocious abortion is, it does not justify using illicit means to further our cause. We don’t condone murdering abortion practitioners and we don’t condone using illicit accusations against our Bishops to force them to take action we deem appropriate.

The Bishops may have the authority but that isn’t what is in question here.

If we were living in Jesus time we would all be Jews as that is what Jesus was and was raised in. The Sanhedrin would be the hierarchy and yet God raised John the Baptist to preach and condemn those who caused scandal. He had no authority from the Sanhedrin. Nobody needs authority to remind others to uphold what they swore to defend.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The Church laity are called to hold accountable the Church leadership to protect the integrity of the faith. You and similar others seem overly concerned about protecting, buffering and cowering to the ineffectual leadership of those lagging shepherds who give rise to scandal for Flock entrusted to their care. The reason that many bishops do not have the standing with the laity is because of their lack or orthodoxy and/or courage, IMHO.

Read Canon 212: It refers to in “keeping with knowledge, competence and position.”

First, Judi Brown has no particular knowledge of what individual Bishops are doing Pastorally in private with these politicians. In my diocese, there is a rumor that is essentially common knowledge because the politician is rumored to have confirmed it to many people that the Bishop instructed this remarried outside the Church politician to no longer refer to himself publicly as Catholic. If you wanted to make the Bishop boiling mad, you could ask him if this was true. He responded forcefully it is nobody’s business what I have discussed privately with a member of his flock.

Second, Judi Brown is an anti-abortion activist with no trained competence.

Third, she holds no position that would give her any position that would warrant her to “insist” what a Bishop should do pastorally to a member of his flock.

Despite these limitations required in Canon 212, she publicly admonishes Bishops.

Canon 212 further says that she should “respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors”

I find her characterizations that I described earlier as showing disrespect and the opposite of reverence. I am not buffeting, protecting or cowering to anyone except what the Church teaches in Canon 212. While her cause and her desired goal may be just, it doesn’t justify her method.

Canon 212:
They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.