Bishop Bruskewitz Statement

  • Thread starter Thread starter corvidae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

corvidae

Guest
americanpapist.com/2006/0…1-ewers-0.html

Some woman named Patricia O’Donnell Ewers, who is the Chair of something called “A National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People”, has said that her Board “calls for strong fraternal correction of the Diocese of Lincoln.” The Diocese of Lincoln has nothing to be corrected for, since the Diocese of Lincoln is and has always been in full compliance with all laws of the Catholic Church and with all civil laws. Furthermore, Ewers and her Board have no authority in the Catholic Church and the Diocese of Lincoln does not recognize them as having any significance.

It is well known that some of the members of Ewers’ Board are ardent advocates of partial birth abortion, other abortions, human cloning, and other moral errors. It is understandable then how such persons could dislike the Diocese of Lincoln, which upholds the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.

The words attributed to Ewers seem to confirm the suspicion that the members of her Board are unfamiliar with Catholic teachings, Catholic ecclesiology, and even the basic rudiments of the Catholic Catechism. Rather than concerning themselves with the Diocese of Lincoln about which they appear completely ignorant, Ewers and her colleagues would occupy themselves in a better way by learning something about the Catholic religion and the traditions and doctrines and laws of the Catholic Church.

The Diocese of Lincoln does not see any reason for the existence of Ewers and her organization.

This is kinda old, but I wanted to know what people think of it.

I have heard that this is after the USCB refused to listen to Bruskewitz, that the new guidelines place blame on everyone but the bishops themselves, and that the bishops need to review their own actions and take responsibility for their actions

A lone Raven
 
What is it that is claimed that the diocese has or hasn’t done?

Peace

Tim
 
No link to a news article has been provided. Thread closed. PM me with the link so I can insert it and reopen thread. Thanks.

Walt
 
This diocese won’t let the National Review Board in. Basically, the diocese opens its records for civil authority, and for those with authority from the vatican, but puts no authority in the national review board which is supposed to “keep an eye on” the diocese.

The National Review Board was put together by the United States Council of Bishops. However, I should point out that no bishop is under the authority of a council of bishops unless that council is in union with Rome.

Since this has been written, the USCB’s ideas on how to combat the scandals of the church have been rejected by the vatican.

A lone Raven

p.s. I just wanted to see what people think, it is not often a bishop speaks so frankly, or so forcefully
 
So there is a board acting without the authority of Rome and demanding that they be permitted to audit a diocese? Neat idea. I can’t wait to see how this one plays out over time.
 
There is no reason for Bishop Bruskewitz or the Diocese of Lincoln to reply to people who have no eclesiastical authority. For the Diocese to succumb to their demands would be to give the impression that the Church that Jesus founded was upon the rock of democracy rather than the rock named Peter. This is just another attempt at relativising Church authority and eventually doctrine…which will lead to apostsasy in America…

It is situations like these, brought about by groups who appear to have no interest in the salvific truths of Catholicism, but who would rather change it to fit their image of what it should be, innocuous or even heroic tho it seem at first glance, which will lead us down the road to toward schism and eventual apostasy. Whether we like it or not, persecution has come to the shores of America…in the form of secularization of the society and the Church. We must not give in…we will not give in…we will give up our lives if we have to…
 
I believe you are unnecessarily concerned. The Church has both a spiritual and a temporal existence. Its temporal existence is subject to civil authority of state, local and federal governments. In short, it is subject to civil and criminal law. In its spiritual existence it is subject to no authority other than the Trinity. It seems to me that the groups who want to “review” or “audit” the Church are concerned only about temporal and not spiritual matters. These matters strike me as ephemeral and not threatening to the Church in its primary spiritual role.
 
Thank God for Bishop Bruskewitz. He’s absolutely right, there is no reason for the exist of this board. His excellency sees this board for what it really is – an attempt for a bunch of angry, bitter modernist Catholics to tell the Church what to do.

The Church has to obey the civil and criminal laws. However, we have law enforcement agencies for these things. This board is completely unnecessary.

I just wish more bishops had the backbone of Bishop Bruskewitz. No wonder the seminary in Lincoln is full.

God bless Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz!
 
OriginalJS said:
I believe you are unnecessarily concerned. The Church has both a spiritual and a temporal existence. Its temporal existence is subject to civil authority of state, local and federal governments. In short, it is subject to civil and criminal law. In its spiritual existence it is subject to no authority other than the Trinity. It seems to me that the groups who want to “review” or “audit” the Church are concerned only about temporal and not spiritual matters. These matters strike me as ephemeral and not threatening to the Church in its primary spiritual role.
Click to expand...
Perhaps i am unnecessarily concerned…but the groups that wish to “review” or “audit” the Church have no authority whatsoever, either eclesiastical or temporal, other than their wish to exercise control. Given their stances on some key Teachings of the Church, it would appear to me that their motivation is not in accordance with eternal Truth, but rather with temporal ideology. It is just this type of secularization that the American portion of the Church needs to be fighting. Our Faith, if it is anything, is countercultural. A secularized Catholicism is an apostate religion.
 
elijahson said:
Perhaps i am unnecessarily concerned…but the groups that wish to “review” or “audit” the Church have no authority whatsoever, either eclesiastical or temporal, other than their wish to exercise control. Given their stances on some key Teachings of the Church, it would appear to me that their motivation is not in accordance with eternal Truth, but rather with temporal ideology. It is just this type of secularization that the American portion of the Church needs to be fighting. Our Faith, if it is anything, is countercultural. A secularized Catholicism is an apostate religion.
Click to expand...
Is the USCCB an apostate organization? Are you aware that this board was established by the USCCB and Ms. Ewers was appointed by the bishops to head the board?

You may disagree with the USCCB, and no, the USCCB cannot force the diocese to conform to it’s decisions, but this isn’t just some group of lay Catholics who decided to get together and try to change key teachings.

nccbuscc.org/ocyp/nrb.shtml

Peace

Tim
 
I might point out that I am fairly confident the diocese of lincoln is the ONLY diocese not allowing them in.

It seems others dislike them, but still allow them to do whatever they want.

A lone Raven
 
Orogeny, I think what people need to realize is that the review board seems to have been put together as a PR move after the scandals. However, it HAS NO AUTHORITY. I am not saying it was not a good idea, or anything like that, but it HAS NO AUTHORITY. The Council of Bishops has not authority in the matter of governing any diocese but their own individual ones.

It seems that the NRB is demanding authority in the church, and has already taken this authority in certain diocese. Look at its mission, if it does these things, it takes authority. It seems that the NRB has forced itself on unwilling diocese because who would reject the things it stands for? I think bishop bruskewitz does not reject what it stands for, but rather, the NRB itself.

Who could say what would happen if this board found one teaching or another of the Catholic church to be detrimental to the youth. Who could deny them.

It is giving authority from an ecclisiastical group, to a secular group, when it would seem the secular group does not have the best interest of the ecclisiastical in mind.

A lone Raven

p.s. - tell me this is not taking authority

from the link orogeny provided
The National Review Board’s mandate is broader in scope, dealing with national policy issues, studies, recommendations to the body of Bishops and interaction with the Office of Child and Youth Protection.

There cannot be a national policy without a national diocese.
 
corvidae said:
Orogeny, I think what people need to realize is that the review board seems to have been put together as a PR move after the scandals.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion. Others, myself included, think that it was a necessary step.
However, it HAS NO AUTHORITY. I am not saying it was not a good idea, or anything like that, but it HAS NO AUTHORITY. The Council of Bishops has not authority in the matter of governing any diocese but their own individual ones.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the canonical laws regarding this, but the USCCB norms state:
  1. These Essential Norms have been granted recognitio by the Holy See. Having been legitimately promulgated in accordance with the practice of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on May 5, 2006, they constitute particular law for all the diocese/eparchies of the United States of America.
Click to expand...
How does that reconcile with your statement?
It seems that the NRB is demanding authority in the church, and has already taken this authority in certain diocese.
Click to expand...
Which diocese has ceded authority to the board?
Look at its mission, if it does these things, it takes authority.
Click to expand...
It’s charter only allows it to provide advice and comment to the USCCB and to review the implementation of the norms approved by the USCCB. Where does that say that the NRB takes authority?
Who could say what would happen if this board found one teaching or another of the Catholic church to be detrimental to the youth. Who could deny them.
Click to expand...
That is a strawman argument. They only oversee the implementation of the norms approved by the USCCB. They can make recommendations to the USCCB, but they cannot change the norms. Only the bishops can do that.
It is giving authority from an ecclisiastical group, to a secular group, when it would seem the secular group does not have the best interest of the ecclisiastical in mind.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but that is not what the board does.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Is the USCCB an apostate organization? Are you aware that this board was established by the USCCB and Ms. Ewers was appointed by the bishops to head the board?

You may disagree with the USCCB, and no, the USCCB cannot force the diocese to conform to it’s decisions, but this isn’t just some group of lay Catholics who decided to get together and try to change key teachings.

nccbuscc.org/ocyp/nrb.shtml

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
makes you wonder doesn’t it? Why would the USCCB appoint a person and board to “audit” a diocese, when that person and/or board apparently do not agree with the teachings that they are supposed to represent? Why is Orthodoxy or bettery put fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church suspect while “progressivism” celebrated? Why are priests who wish to remain faithful and not bend the knee to the idol of ideology pushed aside and or ignored rather than seen as prophets? We need more Bishops like this one, unafraid to stand for the timeless truths of the faith like Elijah and the prophets of Baal (i do not mean the USCCB please do not misunderstand me) but that type of religion that trades truth for fashion, timelessnes for currentness.

we need to repent before it is too late.
 
corvidae said:
p.s. - tell me this is not taking authority

from the link orogeny provided
The National Review Board’s mandate is broader in scope, dealing with national policy issues, studies, recommendations to the body of Bishops and interaction with the Office of Child and Youth Protection.

There cannot be a national policy without a national diocese.
Click to expand...
That is not taking authority.
You forgot to add this part from the Frequently Asked Questions section:
Does the Board conduct investigations of sexual abuse?
The Board does not conduct investigations into specific incidents of sexual abuse.
Does the Board have the authority to remove a priest or deacon from ministry?
The Board does not have the authority to remove a cleric from ministry. It is the responsibility of the Bishop to remove a priest or deacon from ministry when appropriate.
Does the Board interact with diocesan review boards throughout the United States? There is generally no direct contact between the Board and diocesan review boards. The functions of the National Review Board and the Diocesan Review Board are different in scope. The Charter requires that each bishop to establish his own diocesan review board. The diocesan review boards are primarily concerned with examining instances of sexual abuse by a cleric. The National Review Board’s mandate is broader in scope, dealing with national policy issues, studies, recommendations to the body of Bishops and interaction with the Office of Child and Youth Protection.
Click to expand...
There cannot be a national policy? Really? So you are opposed to the USCCB in general? Because you realize, don’t you, that the USCCB wrote the mandate, not the NRB?

Peace

Tim
 
I kinda am opposed to it, at least the way it is.

I mean, Catholic means universal, but we are not being universal are we, we are saying this group decides on things here. To me it should be more of a discussion arena than a decision making body. It seems to me that we are now identifying more with the “American Catholic Church” than with the Catholic church. I agree that there needs to be discussion between the bishops, but I think the USCCB needs to stop pretending it is anything more than a sounding board. I have less of a problem with the USCCB than with the NRB.

And authority does not mean simply official authority. If the NRB says this priest needs to be removed, and the bishop doesn’t do it, or doesn’t do it the way the NRB likes, they can go the the USCCB or to the press. They are calling for correction of a diocese that does not agree with them. I would call that authority, or trying to take authority.

just my two cents

A lone Raven
 
elijahson said:
makes you wonder doesn’t it? Why would the USCCB appoint a person and board to “audit” a diocese, when that person and/or board apparently do not agree with the teachings that they are supposed to represent?
Click to expand...
Which of the board members don’t agree with the Church’s teaching regarding child sexual abuse? The names and photos of every board member are on the USCCB web page that I linked to. Please provide the name of the individual and the evidence you have for this charge.
Why is Orthodoxy or bettery put fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church suspect while “progressivism” celebrated?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Why are priests who wish to remain faithful and not bend the knee to the idol of ideology pushed aside and or ignored rather than seen as prophets?
Click to expand...
WHAT??? Do you realized that the norms whose implementation the NRB has been tasked with overseeing were approved by the Holy See? If not, please review your bizarre statement about idols. If so, what are you implying?
We need more Bishops like this one, unafraid to stand for the timeless truths of the faith like Elijah and the prophets of Baal (i do not mean the USCCB please do not misunderstand me) but that type of religion that trades truth for fashion, timelessnes for currentness.
Click to expand...
Why do I suspect that you have more issues with the Church than what is being discussed here?

Peace

Tim
 
The norms were not approved by the Vatican

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=19137

if they were, they would have full authority, and bishop bruskewitz would not need to be repremanded, he would be removed for schism.

A lone Raven-

p.s. I have very little trouble with the church, I simply love orthodoxy, I was a member of the diocese of lincoln, and I support my former bishop, even in the face of other bishops

Here is one of the members that I am confident bishop bruskewitz was talking about
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04110205.html
 
corvidae said:
The norms were not approved by the Vatican

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=19137

if they were, they would have full authority, and bishop bruskewitz would not need to be repremanded, he would be removed for schism.
Click to expand...
That story is from 2002. The citation I made indicates that the May 2006 has been accepted. Or maybe I don’t understand what recognitio means. Does that indicate something less than approval?
Here is one of the members that I am confident bishop bruskewitz was talking about
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04110205.html
Click to expand...
So she shouldn’t be on a board that oversees right to life issues. How does her view of abortion affect her ability to carry out her duties as a member of a board tasked with oversight of the implementation of the norms for preventing child sexual abuse?

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top