Bishop Bruskewitz Statement

[OriginalJS]

Somebody will likely correct me on this but isn’t the Bishop the spiritual and temporal head of his diocese? It seems to me he can do whatever he wants without a by-your-leave from anyone and there isn’t much anybody can do, the Pope included. Remember Bishop LeFebre? He was viewed by many as a wild man but his ordinations of priests were as valid as those of any other bishop.

 

[Orogeny]

And two more
lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02073102.html

I would say that these people are what Bishop Bruskewitz was talking about.

Same as above.

and another- lifesite.net/ldn/2002/aug/02082318.html

doesn’t seem like the review board has much credibility

This one is at least relevant to the position. I don’t know about this guy, but a quick google about him found basically the same thing that Reichmann was accusing him of. Not covering up pedophilia or justifying it or supporting it, but supporting a collegue at the medical clinic he was head of. That doesn’t make him a pedophile or a pedophile supporter but that doesn’t excuse him, either. I did find that he is currently on Pres. Bush’s Council on Bioethics and it would seem that the gay/lesbian/transexual community really dislike him (both of which are plusses) and is considered by the secular academic world to be a conservative Catholic. I am willing to give the bishops the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise that they were aware of the issues with McHugh and were satisfied with his responses to their questions.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Somebody will likely correct me on this but isn’t the Bishop the spiritual and temporal head of his diocese? It seems to me he can do whatever he wants without a by-your-leave from anyone and there isn’t much anybody can do, the Pope included. Remember Bishop LeFebre? He was viewed by many as a wild man but his ordinations of priests were as valid as those of any other bishop.

Sure, a bishop can do what ever he likes. He may not remain in communion with the Church if he ignores the Pope, but even bishops have free will .

Peace

Tim

 

[corvidae]

You are perfectly right about bishop lefabrve tim.

However, when someone who will not submit to the church’s magisterium on a major issue such as abortion is named to a board that is designed to be a major factor, it sends a bad message, and also, may bring error in.

Also, there have been press releases from this board about the diocese of lincoln and how bad it is that they are not conforming to what the review board wants. This statement was not completely unprovoked, nor was it an internal thing for the USCCB.

If you have a thing that has the recagnatio or can provide me with it, I will shut up about the NRB not being recognized. As far as I know they have never been recognized by the vatican, just implimented by the USCCB. perhaps I just missed it.

I have been wrong before, I will be wrong again.

I wanted to know what people thought. You are providing (name removed by moderator)ut, thank you tim.

A lone Raven

p.s. is it ok for the NRB to release press releases about a bishop without the consent of the USCCB

 

[corvidae]

I will give them the benefit of the doubt as well, I was pulling from only one source because I was trying to find things quickly, thank you for showing me my error.

A lone Raven

 

[Orogeny]

Also, there have been press releases from this board about the diocese of lincoln and how bad it is that they are not conforming to what the review board wants. This statement was not completely unprovoked, nor was it an internal thing for the USCCB.

I would agree with you that that would not be appropriate. They are, according to their charter, to report to the USCCB.

If you have a thing that has the recagnatio or can provide me with it, I will shut up about the NRB not being recognized. As far as I know they have never been recognized by the vatican, just implimented by the USCCB. perhaps I just missed it.

Well, first off, I was serious when I asked if recognitio is the same thing as approval, because I don’t know .

The recognitio I refered to is for the essential norms, the basis for the establishment of the NRB. The NRB isn’t mentioned in the essential norms, but the creation of the board would seem to be a logical step in implementing the program.

Here is the link that I originally referred to:usccb.org/ocyp/norms.shtml

Click on the “english” link under essential norms. It is referenced in the first norm.

Also: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4542

This is the letter granting the recognitio in December 2002.

Peace

Tim

 

[corvidae]

While it may seem to be implied, I do not see it, I mean, if someone does all those things, but doesn’t allow the NRB to audit, then they are not violating the recagnatio.

The recagnatio in my understanding is the Vatican going ok, this is now binding as law to this area.

A lone Raven

p.s.

Thanks for the links

also, look at #5 - The review board, established by the diocesan/eparchial bishop, will be composed of at least five persons of outstanding integrity and good judgment in full communion with the Church

This is for each individual diocese, why would it not apply to a national organization.
I support the idea of some kind of review board, but I think it should be an extension of the vatican. I also think that any national form of a diocisan review board needs to follow the same rules.

 

[estesbob]

Somebody will likely correct me on this but isn’t the Bishop the spiritual and temporal head of his diocese? It seems to me he can do whatever he wants without a by-your-leave from anyone and there isn’t much anybody can do, the Pope included. Remember Bishop LeFebre? He was viewed by many as a wild man but his ordinations of priests were as valid as those of any other bishop.

A Bishpo reprots dierectly to the Pope. They are under no obligation to answer to anythng from the USCCB.

 

[estesbob]

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

Right-she shouldnt be in the board unless she accepts all of catholic teachings. It is beyond beleif that the Church would ask the opinion on child abuse of a woman who supports the killing of 1.2 million children a year.

 

[Orogeny]

Right-she shouldnt be in the board unless she accepts all of catholic teachings. It is beyond beleif that the Church would ask the opinion on child abuse of a woman who supports the killing of 1.2 million children a year.

Do you accept the validity of the NRB? How does her stance affect her ability to determine if the directives of the USCCB, which you have already indicated have no authority over individual diocese, are being carried out in accordance with the essential norms? Especially in light of the fact that she is only one of thirteen board members?

If each and every person on that board completely accepted each and every teaching of the Church, would your opinion of the board be different?

Peace

Tim

 

[estesbob]

Do you accept the validity of the NRB? How does her stance affect her ability to determine if the directives of the USCCB, which you have already indicated have no authority over individual diocese, are being carried out in accordance with the essential norms? Especially in light of the fact that she is only one of thirteen board members?

If each and every person on that board completely accepted each and every teaching of the Church, would your opinion of the board be different?

Peace

Tim

I dont really have an opinon of the board. If a Bishop wants to have them poke around his dioocese that is their perogative.

However i dont trust ANYONE who supports the slaughter of 1.2 million chiledren a year and they should not have (name removed by moderator)ut into any board sanctioned by the Church.

 

[bellesjoy]

Bishop Vasa, Baker Diocese of Oregon has basically said the same thing to the USCCB, stating that he answers to Rome not the committees of the USCCB. And with good cause, as did Bishop Bruskewitz. The “safe environment” programs at the time of this story were being required for all children in all diocese with no excuses to be made even by the parents to opt out. This was, in the eyes of these two good bishops, a usurpation of parental rights and they found the programs potentially to cause direct damage to children.

Their views seem to have been upheld in the long run because the USCCB later this summer withdrew it’s unreasonable and damaging requirement that they, not parents, had the right to dictate and force sexual education on Catholic children. None of us would stand for this in a public school! This in itself was an admission that the USCCB was going against all that our Holy Father and his predecessors have said about the rights of parents where the education (especially sexual), of their children is concerned.

Furthermore, the Catholic Medical Association will shortly be publishing a report on this topic, that will show the stances taken by these two good bishops to be correct (perhaps Oct?). The studies/report will confirm that the sexualization of children, even when done for what is purported to be “good” intentions, does great and irreparable harm.

Thank God for these good men, who, without thought to how they would be personally perceived, refused to allow the children in their diocese to be further harmed by programs that have been devised by those who champion PP, homosexual behavior and marriage, abortion and the denial of parental rights. (I am refering here to the authors of the programs, not the USCCB in general…I hope this was simply an issue of delegating something to the wrong people!)

In seeking to gain public approval that “something was being done” about the sexual scandals, our children were being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Check into these issues before you condemn good men who have done nothing but defend children and their families from harm. God Bless Bishop Bruskewitz and Bishop Vasa.

 

[corvidae]

Yipee for Bishop Vasa
just in case you are unaware, I believe that he came from the lincoln diocese before he was made a bishop. So is Bishop Jackels of wichita and Bishop Olmstead of pheonix.

It seems that perhaps with a common background, these bishops might be able to rely on eachother for strength.

A lone Raven

 

[Orogeny]

Bishop Vasa, Baker Diocese of Oregon has basically said the same thing to the USCCB, stating that he answers to Rome not the committees of the USCCB. And with good cause, as did Bishop Bruskewitz. The “safe environment” programs at the time of this story were being required for all children in all diocese with no excuses to be made even by the parents to opt out. This was, in the eyes of these two good bishops, a usurpation of parental rights and they found the programs potentially to cause direct damage to children.

A couple of points here. The problem doesn’t seem to be the controversial programs programs for children. It is about refusing to cooperate with the audit which was being used to measure the level of compliance with the USCCB. Bishop Vasa apparently did cooperate with the audit. The call for correction was based solely on the refusal to participate in the audit.

The claim that the problem was based on the children’s program is wrong. The Archiocese of Galveston/Houston does not have a program in place but cooperated with the audit. If you read the report, Galveston/Houston was not called out like Lincoln or the Eparchy of Newton for Melchite Catholics were.

Peace

Tim

 

[bellesjoy]

I refer anyone interested to this column written by Bishop Vasa for our diocesan newspaper in Oct 05. His explanation of the problem with audits from the USCCB are found in the second half of the column: sentinel.org/articles/2005-40/14234.html

Knowing him personally, I would say that the audits done by the USCCB are of little conscequence to him. He frequently replies that he answers only to Rome.

And yes, Bishop Vasa is proudy from the Diocese of Lincoln and has gifted the Diocese of Baker with his guidance, teaching and sheparding for 6yrs now. He is a blessing.

 

[bellesjoy]

To address the issue of what this is all about also see this article that explains the progression of issues:
journalstar.com/articles/2006/04/25/local/doc444d596f96f67424764944.prt

How to best protect children was at the heart of this audit. This also talks about the connection of some on the board to viewpoints that are not in accordance with Catholic faith. Notice that CTA is siding with the board against the Bishop…that should be a huge red flag!

My personal opinion is that some who are on boards(maybe closet CTA members?), etc for the USCCB, (like many places in the curch) are less than supportive of the Magisterium and challenge doctrine. That would explain a direct confrontation with Bishop Bruskewitz(who is extraordinarily orthodox), but again, just my personal opinion.

 

[Orogeny]

I refer anyone interested to this column written by Bishop Vasa for our diocesan newspaper in Oct 05. His explanation of the problem with audits from the USCCB are found in the second half of the column: sentinel.org/articles/2005-40/14234.html

Knowing him personally, I would say that the audits done by the USCCB are of little conscequence to him. He frequently replies that he answers only to Rome.

And yes, Bishop Vasa is proudy from the Diocese of Lincoln and has gifted the Diocese of Baker with his guidance, teaching and sheparding for 6yrs now. He is a blessing.

Well, as I stated in my last post, the Diocese of Baker and the Archdiocese of Galveston/Houston obviously participated in the audit and were not listed as non-compliant, so the issue of educating children about sex abuse was not as important as perhaps the bishop thought.

Peace

Tim

 

[bellesjoy]

From the comversations I have listened to with more than one Bishop in attendance I can tell you that the issue with the “safe environment” of children is definetly a more key issue than you realize.
If you call an audit having Kettlecamp or anyone else from the USCCB call and ask you if you have implemented those programs and you say no, then you might be able to say “aha, it was the audit”. But believe me they were not here going through the list of our programs. They were told our diocese is not compllying, period, and you can call that an audit or call it a door slammed in their face. It was because of the children’s programs that were being pushed by the USCCB, not the more general issue of audits.
Also you will have to watch for the CMA report to come out to appreciate just what a huge impact this will have on the kind of programs appropriate for children.
Unless you have seen this all unfold up close and personally, I can see why you might think this is a power struggle over audits…It is about kids. Bishop Vasa is correct in this and believes that is far more important than any USCCB audit…and the Diocese of Baker was found not in compliance with the mandated programs…the USCCB finally saw the handwritting on the wall and backed down on the issue making the committees audits look even more ridiculous and unimportant, which they were all along.

 

[Orogeny]

From the comversations I have listened to with more than one Bishop in attendance I can tell you that the issue with the “safe environment” of children is definetly a more key issue than you realize.

So did Bishop Vasa participate in the audit or not? If so and this was really about the childrens program, why did he participate? Galveston/Houston doesn’t have the program in place and they participated in the audit. No note of them being out of compliance if you read the report.

Peace

Tim