I am confused by your post. You claim Rome has spoken and the case is closed? Has Rome said what must be done in each case?
Also, you says folks want people excoriated? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
And, is every pastoral decision a good one? Can good Catholics disagree with such decisions?
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.
How I arrive at the conclusion? She is pushing for public denial of Communion. That is excoriating them. Addressing it individually with the specific politician, and privately with their pastor or other priests who are likely to be confronted with the issue seems to be the approach that Rome wants, and that most definitely doesn’t suit those who are publicly attempting to force the bishops’ hand in the matter.
Can Catholics disagree with pastoral dicisions? Let me put it this way: generally most people don’t know the sum total of the decision, the facts of the case and the applicable laws sufficiently to make an informed decision. If they know all of that (and I fail to see how, in most circumstances if something is being handled privately that they would have even the beginning of that information), then it is possible they may. But we seem to be approaching a point where there are any number of self-anointed “experts” who seem to know better in almost any given situation than those who are actually involved in that situation.
Does that mean I am against all disagreement with decisions? No, certainly not. But I am constantly amazed that so many people who know so little have so much to say. Particularly when they attempt to manipulate it through a public backlash as she is attempting to do.
Some people have a view of the Church that is an authoritarian model. That is not the model Christ gave us, nor is it the one that the majority of bishops, and Rome, follows. There have been a few issues, for example, that in time have lead to an excommunication. Many seem to think that excommunication is the route that all bishops should be taking and wonder why it is that so few do.
What those people don’t understand is that throughout the history of the Church, and most certainly now, excommunication is rarely used, and is a long process. They seem to want an episcopal leadership that issues anathemas and excommunications with abandon at the first sign of any difference with Church rules and regulations. That simply is not the way it happens, and most certainly is not the Gospel model.
I think she has gone to a political model being used frequently by special interest groups to bring pressure to bear on legislators. I don’t think that is how the Church works; I don’t believe it will be successful; I think she has made a tactical decision that is going to backfire on her, that there are many other ways to handle this issue, and she has not and will not help the pro life community with this choice.
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.
This reminds me of people who criticize judges for the decisons rendered in cases when a) their knowledge of the case is so minimal as to be almost non-existent, and b) their knowledge of law and its complexities could be put into a thimble and leave room for a fat finger. Opinions and halitosis seem to share a lot of characteristics; everybody has them and they both stink.
