Bishop Bruskewitz to "Catholic Citizens of Illinois"

[chicago]

My issue was just that a heterodox diocese needs some strong-arming to get it back on track. I don’t think a bishop can transform a heterodox diocese into a model of Catholicism in a few years.

While a heterodox diocese obviously needs strong guidance, I think that “strong arming” usually backfires. It takes a lot more panache to be an effective leader.

Cardinal George, for instance, was lambasted by the conservatives in the archdiocese for not being “hard and swift enough” in “cracking down” when he first got here. The reality was that he was doing just that in places and it only created uproar, causing people to dig their heels in deeper and ridicule him. Since then, he’s learned that a slow but steady, more nuanced approach has signifigant lasting effects. No, everything won’t change and some things will stay the same. But there is also positive growth, which may be all one can ask.

The city/country thing wasn’t the issue. There can be rural dioceses that are in ruins and city dioceses that are pretty orthodox and with some pruning could be made much better.

True. But I still maintain that when you are dealing with such signifigant and diverse populations with also the kind of brains, power, and money which is available in the cardinaliate sees of the U.S. the problems must be dealt with at an entirely different level than what is manageable in a smaller, mostly rural diocese. It’s like the difference of running a small store versus a fortune 500 company.

Even the changes which Bishop Carlson has sought to implement quickly in Saginaw, for example, wouldn’t fly so fast in Boston, New York, Chicago, L.A.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

While a heterodox diocese obviously needs strong guidance, I think that “strong arming” usually backfires. It takes a lot more panache to be an effective leader.

Cardinal George, for instance, was lambasted by the conservatives in the archdiocese for not being “hard and swift enough” in “cracking down” when he first got here. The reality was that he was doing just that in places and it only created uproar, causing people to dig their heels in deeper and ridicule him. Since then, he’s learned that a slow but steady, more nuanced approach has signifigant lasting effects. No, everything won’t change and some things will stay the same. But there is also positive growth, which may be all one can ask.

True. But I still maintain that when you are dealing with such signifigant and diverse populations with also the kind of brains, power, and money which is available in the cardinaliate sees of the U.S. the problems must be dealt with at an entirely different level than what is manageable in a smaller, mostly rural diocese. It’s like the difference of running a small store versus a fortune 500 company.

Even the changes which Bishop Carlson has sought to implement quickly in Saginaw, for example, wouldn’t fly so fast in Boston, New York, Chicago, L.A.

I think there is a definite tension between doing or saying “what needs to be done” and taking an approach that is more or even most likely to get the whole church to go along with the bishop. It’s one thing to prefer that instead of openly excoriating disobedient pastors the bishop seek to work with them one on one. But if it gets to a situation in which everyone knows “the bishop is aware of Fr. or Prof. X’s heresy/abuses and he doesn’t do anything about it” the strategy is starting to cause scandal. A bishop is one of Ezekiel’s watchmen. He has a duty to teach the truth whether or not people are going to like it. There are measures that can be taken to try to soften the effects of the truth, but if he fails to teach truth (which indirectly involves making sure priests are held accountable for disobedience) he will be held accountable for the death of those who espoused the errors they felt he tacitly approved.

A real-life example: I worked in lay ministry. The institution at which I worked offered Mass often throughout the year, and had many of its own (abusive) peculiarities. One of these that I tried to fix was that the musical arrangement of the Our Father didn’t actually have the text of the Our Father. The first have was fine, but the second half was a paraphrase. Our director, who had no interest in being obedient to begin with, told me we wouldn’t change even if it was certainly illicit but also cited the fact that the bishop had heard it and never mentioned anything as defense of the practice. By not saying anything (and let me say that there may be some sort of outside possibility I was wrong on this particular issue) the bishop taught that whole organization that it’s alright to change the ordinary of the Mass.

 

[chicago]

But if it gets to a situation in which everyone knows “the bishop is aware of Fr. or Prof. X’s heresy/abuses and he doesn’t do anything about it” the strategy is starting to cause scandal. A bishop is one of Ezekiel’s watchmen. He has a duty to teach the truth whether or not people are going to like it. There are measures that can be taken to try to soften the effects of the truth, but if he fails to teach truth (which indirectly involves making sure priests are held accountable for disobedience) he will be held accountable for the death of those who espoused the errors they felt he tacitly approved.

This cuts both ways. On the one hand, just at what point is the situation so critical that the bishop must act? Afterall, these priests and teachers are often crafty enough to offer just enough heterodoxy mixed with just enough fidelity so as to blur the distinctions. Further, there is the matter of in what way one should act. Directly? Indirectly? If you try to “clean house”, you may just ahve backlash which makes things even worse, where as if you deal with matters in stride you could accomplish the same effect without causing a major stir. Finally, the bishop has to be concerned about the effects of any action or inaction. Yes, he may have to answer to God for doing nothing. But if what he does do will only cause even more to be led away, then he’s kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

A real-life example: I worked in lay ministry. The institution at which I worked offered Mass often throughout the year, and had many of its own (abusive) peculiarities. One of these that I tried to fix was that the musical arrangement of the Our Father didn’t actually have the text of the Our Father. The first have was fine, but the second half was a paraphrase. Our director, who had no interest in being obedient to begin with, told me we wouldn’t change even if it was certainly illicit but also cited the fact that the bishop had heard it and never mentioned anything as defense of the practice. By not saying anything (and let me say that there may be some sort of outside possibility I was wrong on this particular issue) the bishop taught that whole organization that it’s alright to change the ordinary of the Mass.

True enough. Though even bishops have to pick their battles and decide when it’s best to speak and when it’s best to just keep his mouth shut. Jesus, Himself, remained silent against his accusers who weren’t going to hear anything of his own defense, anyway.

As concerns the bishop and liturgy at certain parishes or chapels, I find it interesting that when the bishop comes to celebrate a Mass somewhere, things often are done “by the book” for that one Mass. So he may never really know any the better of it.

 

[Georgess]

Thank you O.P and others for posts !

Good thing The Bishop want to exhort and warn , so that many of the faithful can be more vigilant …he may not have specified the remedies ,since they are probably the same ones we all know well …

Having read how Pope LeoX11 had given the directive to have rosary recited in churches ( and also the St. Michael prayer), sometimes wonder, if the remedy might be as simple as that - like the simple orange cure was , for the devastating illness of scurvy ,which manifested in varied and confusing ways , in olden days !

Tomorrow is the last day of The Rosary month …a day that in many lands get celebrated joyfully - parishes having been grouped into family units based on geography , and each unit , processing to the church , with lit candles and rosary recited in song - a joyful occasion for all…

Well , let us hope too, that like the spring shoots here and there , a priest or two, with the support (may be even monetary - in addition to the regular donation for The Mass ) and encouragement of parishioners, lead the rosary before or after The Mass …and say the St.Michael prayer …

and soon the tendency of fallen nature to make a name for itsef through liturgical reform and such vanishes … the beauty and simplicity of The Rosary devotion ( with no room for change ) having brought back the discipline and order …teens appreciating and staying for the Eucharistic adoration and benediction, instead of more mindless ’ hanging out’…guys realising their warrior and father role better , through intercession of St. Michael …

And halloween, as it is celebrated now, would become a faint memory !

 

[ComradeAndrei]

While a heterodox diocese obviously needs strong guidance, I think that “strong arming” usually backfires. It takes a lot more panache to be an effective leader.

Cardinal George, for instance, was lambasted by the conservatives in the archdiocese for not being “hard and swift enough” in “cracking down” when he first got here. The reality was that he was doing just that in places and it only created uproar, causing people to dig their heels in deeper and ridicule him. Since then, he’s learned that a slow but steady, more nuanced approach has signifigant lasting effects. No, everything won’t change and some things will stay the same. But there is also positive growth, which may be all one can ask.

Sorry for not explaining myself better. I would agree with you here. I’ve been learning this myself, the heterodoxy of the '60s is dying out. Slowly, but its days are numbered. Sometimes it is better to let nuns in liatards sing litanies to “Mother Earth, Gaia and Sophia” and doing “liturgical dance” because that sort of thing holds no real appeal and is just a walking corpse. No use in stiring the pot and giving old radicals a burr under the saddle.

True. But I still maintain that when you are dealing with such signifigant and diverse populations with also the kind of brains, power, and money which is available in the cardinaliate sees of the U.S. the problems must be dealt with at an entirely different level than what is manageable in a smaller, mostly rural diocese. It’s like the difference of running a small store versus a fortune 500 company.

Problem is, the Kingdom of God isn’t made up of “brains, power, and money” and the idea of a diocese as a “business” is one error of the last century in American Catholicism.

As concerns the bishop and liturgy at certain parishes or chapels, I find it interesting that when the bishop comes to celebrate a Mass somewhere, things often are done “by the book” for that one Mass. So he may never really know any the better of it.

If any liturgy changes because a bishop is coming (aside of what is called for in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum) you know you have a problem. You shouldn’t have to put on a show for the bishop in order to stay out of trouble. If you know you’d get called on something you do with the liturgy and try to hide it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.

 

[chicago]

Problem is, the Kingdom of God isn’t made up of “brains, power, and money” and the idea of a diocese as a “business” is one error of the last century in American Catholicism.

And, yet, there is a certain RealPolitik at play whereby the “brains, power, and money” (not to mention knowing where the bodies are buried) can make like VERY difficult for a bishop. As the saying goes, Church politics is worse than secular politics.

If any liturgy changes because a bishop is coming (aside of what is called for in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum) you know you have a problem. You shouldn’t have to put on a show for the bishop in order to stay out of trouble. If you know you’d get called on something you do with the liturgy and try to hide it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.

Well, of course! Which is precisely why things get done right when the bishop shows up. Either that or the bishop and his helpers just do things right on their own and don’t get to see Fr. Bob and Sister Sally playing loose and fast in their own natural environment.

 

[Jabronie]

I’ve only read the parts you put on the thread, but that bishop needs to be made a Cardinal!!! We need him as a leader. Although I think that many problems in the church are caused by misguided laity, I think the only thing that can correct that problem is good leadership, which seems to be lacking with many church leaders. He needs to become a Cardinal. I don’t know why the Pope doesn’t do that.

I’d hate to lose him in Lincoln, but yes. Make him a cardinal… and send him to Los Angeles as soon as possible!

 

[fix]

Cardinal George, for instance, was lambasted by the conservatives in the archdiocese for not being “hard and swift enough” in “cracking down” when he first got here. The reality was that he was doing just that in places and it only created uproar, causing people to dig their heels in deeper and ridicule him.

There seems to be much concern for liberals being “pushed out” and becoming schismatic by so called conservative bishops. Is there no concern the conservative laity will be pushed out and become schismatic by the scandal and laxity of bishops who fail to act timely?

I understand there needs to be a balance but I would think many perceive the current swing to the left in many places to be wildly unbalanced.

In short why is there so much concern for those who are disobedient and seemingly little concern for those who have a right to proper mass and orthodox teaching?

This brings us back to the original point:

…When heretical and erroneous teachings are allowed to run rampant, it is a very short time before total disaster engulfs the entire ecclesiastical enterprise in any one area…

“Where is this church?” It is certainly not situated in Andrew Greeley or Richard McBrien, or Sister Chittester, or in the myriads of other personages and voices whose faces and words appear to dominate the media when it come to Catholic expression…

What are the bishops doing to correct such things?

 

[SnorterLuster]

I guess I just don’t understand. In my mind, the Church’s mission is to proclaim and preserve the truth. It is also to aid us, the people, to our salvation by enforcing the truth as uncompromising. The truth is black and white, true or false. So explain to me how compromising the truth so you don’t ruffle feathers or cause people to cut out because they don’t like what the Church says, furthers the mission of Christ’s Church on earth.

If Cardinals, Bishops, Priests or the Laity are being untrue to the truth, is it charitable to allow them to persist in their error?

As an example, a couple practices birth control and know in their heart that it is wrong. Their parish priest tells them it is OK to practice birth control because he doesn’t want them to feel bad or leave the Church (and they likely would leave the Church). The couple, knowing that the advice is wrong none the less decide they can continue their practice since a priest has given his OK. They continue going to Communion with the knowledge that it is wrong, but their feelings and pocketbook are more important than the truth. And since the priest told them it is OK, they will probably convince themselves, most of the time, that it is true. Only deep in their heart, they know that birth control is wrong.

So this couple is kept in the Church by allowing them to sin. Their soul is lost, but their mind and body are satisfied. Is this what Catholic belief has come to? Is not our Church, through the Bishops and priests, charged to lead us to the Truth, which Jesus brought to us by his sacrifice on the cross? If the truth is hard, the reward is eternal happiness. Should the bishops be allowed to let even one soul be sent to eternal damnation for the sake of convience.

I hope one of you can explain to me how it helps any of us (or them) to compromise the truth in order to make sure that those people who don’t want the truth aren’t upset.

Kudos to Bishop Bruskewitz. Keep telling the truth and let the chips fall where they will.

 

[fmagill]

I guess I just don’t understand. In my mind, the Church’s mission is to proclaim and preserve the truth. It is also to aid us, the people, to our salvation by enforcing the truth as uncompromising. The truth is black and white, true or false. So explain to me how compromising the truth so you don’t ruffle feathers or cause people to cut out because they don’t like what the Church says, furthers the mission of Christ’s Church on earth.

If Cardinals, Bishops, Priests or the Laity are being untrue to the truth, is it charitable to allow them to persist in their error?

As an example, a couple practices birth control and know in their heart that it is wrong. Their parish priest tells them it is OK to practice birth control because he doesn’t want them to feel bad or leave the Church (and they likely would leave the Church). The couple, knowing that the advice is wrong none the less decide they can continue their practice since a priest has given his OK. They continue going to Communion with the knowledge that it is wrong, but their feelings and pocketbook are more important than the truth. And since the priest told them it is OK, they will probably convince themselves, most of the time, that it is true. Only deep in their heart, they know that birth control is wrong.

So this couple is kept in the Church by allowing them to sin. Their soul is lost, but their mind and body are satisfied. Is this what Catholic belief has come to? Is not our Church, through the Bishops and priests, charged to lead us to the Truth, which Jesus brought to us by his sacrifice on the cross? If the truth is hard, the reward is eternal happiness. Should the bishops be allowed to let even one soul be sent to eternal damnation for the sake of convience.

I hope one of you can explain to me how it helps any of us (or them) to compromise the truth in order to make sure that those people who don’t want the truth aren’t upset.

Kudos to Bishop Bruskewitz. Keep telling the truth and let the chips fall where they will.

Amen!

 

[chicago]

There seems to be much concern for liberals being “pushed out” and becoming schismatic by so called conservative bishops. Is there no concern the conservative laity will be pushed out and become schismatic by the scandal and laxity of bishops who fail to act timely?

Perhaps the conservative bishops are the ones who do find ways to accomodate the conservative Catholics, in reality; thus ensuring that they stay within the fold.

In short why is there so much concern for those who are disobedient and seemingly little concern for those who have a right to proper mass and orthodox teaching?

Concern for the lost sheep? I would argue that the push from the more liberal wings is much greater and numerous than that from the conservative wing. Thus more attention needs to be placed there. It isn’t usually that the bishops don’t WANT to rein in the problem spots, but that when the bull is running so wild, it ain’t easy.

 

[Jim]

Good article! Though as a physiology major (and therefore science geek ) I found a major error that I need to point out, when he quotes Bishop Sheen as saying: “Most poisons are quite sweet to the lips. It is only when they are ingested that they destroy one.”

This is false. In fact, most poisons are bitter. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_%28taste%29#Bitterness This is nature’s way of preventing members of the animal kingdom (including humans) from ingesting them. I know there are SOME poisons that are sweet, though the only one that comes to mind is Ethylene Glycol, a primary ingredient in car antifreezes that has cause the tragic deaths of so many beloved cats and dogs.

 

[bear06]

Good article! Though as a physiology major (and therefore science geek ) I found a major error that I need to point out, when he quotes Bishop Sheen as saying: “Most poisons are quite sweet to the lips. It is only when they are ingested that they destroy one.”

This is false. In fact, most poisons are bitter. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_%28taste%29#Bitterness This is nature’s way of preventing members of the animal kingdom (including humans) from ingesting them. I know there are SOME poisons that are sweet, though the only one that comes to mind is Ethylene Glycol, a primary ingredient in car antifreezes that has cause the tragic deaths of so many beloved cats and dogs.

My husband is from Redlands and I can just see him saying the same thing!!! Must be the smog that turns you all into science geeks or inmates!

 

[Joel_Ruiz-Dana]

I know there are SOME poisons that are sweet, though the only one that comes to mind is Ethylene Glycol

Don’t forget about artificial sweetners notfound
Gimme good-old-fashoned tooth-rotting sugar anyday! http://people.inf.elte.hu/vengi/smiley/happy/:toothless:.gif

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

This cuts both ways. On the one hand, just at what point is the situation so critical that the bishop must act? Afterall, these priests and teachers are often crafty enough to offer just enough heterodoxy mixed with just enough fidelity so as to blur the distinctions. Further, there is the matter of in what way one should act. Directly? Indirectly? If you try to “clean house”, you may just ahve backlash which makes things even worse, where as if you deal with matters in stride you could accomplish the same effect without causing a major stir. Finally, the bishop has to be concerned about the effects of any action or inaction. Yes, he may have to answer to God for doing nothing. But if what he does do will only cause even more to be led away, then he’s kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

True enough. Though even bishops have to pick their battles and decide when it’s best to speak and when it’s best to just keep his mouth shut. Jesus, Himself, remained silent against his accusers who weren’t going to hear anything of his own defense, anyway.

I’m kind of glad I chose the image of the watchman because the choice for the watchman is clear: do nothing and be charged with the sins of those he allowed to stray or speak and be held to have faithfully executed his office despite the fact that many may still have strayed. The reason I talked of a “tension” existing, then, is not that one must decide whether to act or not; the choice is simply among courses of action, for act a bishop must to ensure that the truth (especially the Truth) is known.

A classic legal principle (IIRC) is that it may sometimes be better to tolerate an evil if enforcing a prohibition only creates more evil, in which case perhaps the argument might be made that official sanctions should not be used as often as they are called for (the vast majority of priests I have encountered would be accumulating admonishments or punishments every Mass). Still, the choice of toleration does not dispense from the duty to make the truth known about an issue, which is why I think *some *action must be taken so that Catholics at least know when something is wrong, even if it is tolerated.

Take, for instance, contraception. A better legal code than ours would outlaw it, but it has been deemed acceptable to tolerate it. Any bishop, however, who lets his flock think distorting the sex act through contraception is anything but grave matter has seriously failed in his obligation.

 

[jediliz]

Please don’t steal Bishop Fabian away yet! Lincoln is the ONLY diocese that doesn’t allow girl altar servers and I’d like to keep it that way. I think he’s only about 70, so we’ve got about 5 more years. I pray that Lincoln will get another Bishop just as wonderful as Bishop Fabian when the time comes.