Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
markomalley said:
And what did they vote on in your example?
Click to expand...
That is not the point of my post. I was giving an example of the American bishops voting. Some people don’t know that the USCCB is the voice of the U.S. bishops. Look at the post I was responding to.
 
KSU said:
Folks, you don’t know what budget is under discussion here. Nevertheless, you actually believe that the bishops took a vote on its moral implications. Moreover, you refuse to acknowledge that Chapter Eight VI B of the Compendium controls the issue under debate here because it’s only a part of the Compendium.:confused:

There is, therefore, no point to further debate.
Click to expand...
Well KSU, I think that you might be reading something into chapter 8 of the Compendium that is not there. Chapter 8 is talking about how the Church and the government are independent of each other. This is to protect us from theocracies such as we have in Iran.

Perhaps chapter 7 of the Compendium might be more helpful for this thread. Chapter 7 is called “Economic Life.” Seeing as the Ryan budget is an economic thing, (a budget is an economic thing) it seems likely that there might be things in chapter 7 that might help.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I still think the Wiki link gives a decent summary but for the Republican promo:

budget.house.gov/fy2013prosperity/

and then the RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET—
FISCAL YEAR 2013
R E P O R T

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt421/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt421.pdf

I juist think the bishops ought to give as much weight to balancing the budget, getting rid of the deficit, as they do to programs for the poor (at least those in agreement with the critique of the budget).
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is helpful. So it is basically the Ryan budget.

But Michael, my question to you way back was not asking for a summation of the Ryan plan. My question was asking you to relate all the questions you were asking about statistics to the Ryan plan. It seemed that we had lost track of the topic of this thread which is about “A bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to the Ryan plan.”
 
ljpgoodwin said:
That is not the point of my post. I was giving an example of the American bishops voting. Some people don’t know that the USCCB is the voice of the U.S. bishops. Look at the post I was responding to.
Click to expand...
I did look at the post to which you responded prior to responding. I find it highly insulting that you brush off certain responses with the same type of comment.

The USCCB, when they unanimously take a position on something in plenary assembly (or at least with a 2/3 majority along with a recognitio from the Apostolic See), is the voice of the US Bishops. Somehow you seem to not be able to manage to acknowledge Can. 455 §4, which I have quoted for you at least twice in this thread. The USCCB is NOT an intermediate body that is between an individual bishop and the Apostolic See.

In fact, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have warned about this, as I have posted before. (See Apostolos Suos, Pastores Gregis, and Benedict XVI’s comments to the Brazilian Episcopal Conference in 2010).

Certainly the more numerous Episcopal Conferences, in order to carry out their service to the individual Bishops who are members, and consequently to the individual Churches, require a complex organization. Even so, ‘‘an excessively bureaucratic development of offices and commissions operating between plenary sessions’’ is to be avoided. ‘‘Episcopal Conferences with their commissions and offices exist to be of help to the Bishops and not to substitute for them’’, and even less to create an intermediate structure between the Apostolic See and individual Bishops.
Pastores Gregis, 63​
 
markomalley said:
I did look at the post to which you responded prior to responding. I find it highly insulting that you brush off certain responses with the same type of comment.

The USCCB, when they unanimously take a position on something in plenary assembly (or at least with a 2/3 majority along with a recognitio from the Apostolic See), is the voice of the US Bishops. Somehow you seem to not be able to manage to acknowledge Can. 455 §4, which I have quoted for you at least twice in this thread. The USCCB is NOT an intermediate body that is between an individual bishop and the Apostolic See.

In fact, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have warned about this, as I have posted before. (See Apostolos Suos, Pastores Gregis, and Benedict XVI’s comments to the Brazilian Episcopal Conference in 2010).
Certainly the more numerous Episcopal Conferences, in order to carry out their service to the individual Bishops who are members, and consequently to the individual Churches, require a complex organization. Even so, ‘‘an excessively bureaucratic development of offices and commissions operating between plenary sessions’’ is to be avoided. ‘‘Episcopal Conferences with their commissions and offices exist to be of help to the Bishops and not to substitute for them’’, and even less to create an intermediate structure between the Apostolic See and individual Bishops.

Pastores Gregis, 63​
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are responding to. My point is that the USCCB is the voice of the American bishops. I was responding to someone who said that the USCCB is some rouge group of lay folks who act apart from the leadership of the bishops. I was not commenting on what kind of authority the USCCB has.
 
markomalley said:
I did look at the post to which you responded prior to responding. I find it highly insulting that you brush off certain responses with the same type of comment.

The USCCB, when they unanimously take a position on something in plenary assembly (or at least with a 2/3 majority along with a recognitio from the Apostolic See), is the voice of the US Bishops. Somehow you seem to not be able to manage to acknowledge Can. 455 §4, which I have quoted for you at least twice in this thread. The USCCB is NOT an intermediate body that is between an individual bishop and the Apostolic See.

In fact, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have warned about this, as I have posted before. (See Apostolos Suos, Pastores Gregis, and Benedict XVI’s comments to the Brazilian Episcopal Conference in 2010).
Certainly the more numerous Episcopal Conferences, in order to carry out their service to the individual Bishops who are members, and consequently to the individual Churches, require a complex organization. Even so, ‘‘an excessively bureaucratic development of offices and commissions operating between plenary sessions’’ is to be avoided. ‘‘Episcopal Conferences with their commissions and offices exist to be of help to the Bishops and not to substitute for them’’, and even less to create an intermediate structure between the Apostolic See and individual Bishops.

Pastores Gregis, 63​
Click to expand...
I was responding to post #203.
 
ljpgoodwin said:
Thanks, this is helpful. So it is basically the Ryan budget.

But Michael, my question to you way back was not asking for a summation of the Ryan plan. My question was asking you to relate all the questions you were asking about statistics to the Ryan plan. It seemed that we had lost track of the topic of this thread which is about “A bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to the Ryan plan.”
Click to expand...
First of all, is this the letter some bishops criticized?

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/reconciliation-letter-to-house-2012-05-08.pdf

Second, I am backing away and flip-flopping. All these national budgets are complex and take some study. I am pretty sure all have at least 20% of budgeted income going to the poor and vulnerable" and that does not include Medicare. We ought not incur expenses we cannot afford. “The poor we will always have with us”. Now the Ryan plan also changes Medicare. God only knows what actual efftecs that would have. It also seeks to repeal many issues in the ACA. How feasible is that now?
 
Here is part of what Archbishop Naumann said:

“One of the elements that wasn’t there that I think has to be there is the federal debt. We cannot simply propose things that are going to increase the debt, and we need to be a responsible voice in the discussion.
That was one of my concerns about the criticisms of Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. I don’t think his proposal is perfect and I think it can be criticized, but I was specifically upset because there were letters sent by the committee [the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development] that spoke about aspects of his proposal being immoral, and I think that was an overstating. We can be critical of aspects of it, but I think Ryan offered a legitimate proposal that was trying to respond to human needs that are there as well as to the national debt, which can also be a great injustice if we pass that on to our children and grandchildren.”
–Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann

catholicworldreport.com/Item/1456/we_didnt_pick_the_time_nor_did_we_pick_the_fight.aspx
 
Michael_Mayo said:
First of all, is this the letter some bishops criticized?

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/reconciliation-letter-to-house-2012-05-08.pdf
Click to expand...
That’s one of the letters that rightly upset (at least) Archbishop Naumann and many Catholics like me. But here is the first letter that is even worse because it uses USCCB’s letterhead:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/hunger-food-nutrition/upload/Letter-to-House-Committee-on-Agriculture-2012-04-16.pdf

Such letters upset a lot of people because the whole teaching of the Compendium is ignored in favor of subsidiary parts.
 
KSU said:
That’s one of the letters that rightly upset (at least) Archbishop Naumann and many Catholics like me. But here is the first letter that is even worse because it uses USCCB’s letterhead:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/hunger-food-nutrition/upload/Letter-to-House-Committee-on-Agriculture-2012-04-16.pdf

Such letters upset a lot of people because the whole teaching of the Compendium is ignored in favor of subsidiary parts.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I do see that they have concern about the deficit and recognize the need for spending cuts somewhere. In their prudential judgement

Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment.

… cuts to agricultural subsidies and direct payments should be considered before cutting anti-hunger programs that help feed poor and vulnerable people.

also

…eliminating unnecessary military and other spending and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs.

I like their priorities but more realistic, I think, are cuts accross the board.
 
The dissident bus tour has ended washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/catholic-nuns-bus-tour-concludes-in-nations-capital/2012/07/02/gJQAWFm1IW_story.html

Perhaps, as he did in Germany lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-levada-out-new-head-of-vaticans-cdf-is-bishop-who-corrected-dissid/, the new head of the CDF will stop all Church-related (including religious orders) funding for NETWORK networklobby.org/
and other dissident groups such as the LCWR.

Sad to say, I don’t see a great deal of difference between the political objectives of NETWORK and Bishop Blaire’s committee.
 
ljpgoodwin said:
I’m not sure what you are responding to. My point is that the USCCB is the voice of the American bishops. I was responding to someone who said that the USCCB is some rouge group of lay folks who act apart from the leadership of the bishops. I was not commenting on what kind of authority the USCCB has.
Click to expand...
The USCCB, when acting in plenary assembly (according to the process in Canon Law and Apostolos Suos), is the voice of the US bishops. That is the only time that the USCCB has the canonical authority to speak in that fashion.

The USCCB has individual bishops who are chairmen of various committees. The USCCB has an individual bishop who is its president. Sometimes those bishops issue statements or press releases as chairmen of those individual committees or as the president. They have no authority (as I have repeatedly proven earlier in this thread) to speak as anything other than the occupant of the position…

Sadly, the press takes press releases issued by these individual bishops and reports those press releases as being the position of the entire US episcopate. Unless those press releases / statements have been approved for release by the bishops in plenary assembly (with respect to Canon Law and Apostolos Suos), then the press doing so is a grave error.

Even more regrettably, there are many Catholics, including participants on CAF, who then take the attitude that a statement / release from an individual bishop (who happens to occupy a chair) has the authority as if it were released by all US bishops.

Additionally, the USCCB has a number of lay people on its staff. Those lay staffers will frequently grant interviews to the press or will answer phone calls from reporters. Occasionally, they will issue statements as well. (Richard Doerflinger and Sister Mary Ann Walsh come to mind in this regard…but there are indeed others)

As with the situation from individual bishops above, often times the press will get it wrong and Catholics will believe the press.

The bottom line is that when the US bishops meet in plenary assembly and unanimously agree to a resolution (or agree to something with a 2/3 vote and receives a recognitio from the Apostolic See), then that is the voice of the US bishops. Anything less devolves to an position of the individual who released the statement and, thus, should be subject to discernment, rather than religious submission of the intellect and will.

If, by stating, the USCCB is the voice of the American bishops, you are talking about the bishops, acting in plenary assembly, as I discussed above, then you and I are in agreement. If, on the other hand, you are talking about individual releases

One other point. You say you were responding to #203. Post 203 said nothing about some rouge [sic] group of lay folks. Post 203 said, No it was not. There was no vote of Bishops. Upthread, Estesbob quoted from Apostolos Suos (a Motu Proprio I have also cited in this thread).
 
markomalley said:
The USCCB, when acting in plenary assembly (according to the process in Canon Law and Apostolos Suos), is the voice of the US bishops. That is the only time that the USCCB has the canonical authority to speak in that fashion.
Click to expand...
The problem with the US Bishops is that they allow the USCCB committee chairman to send political lobbying letters on their behalf with language that suggests that they are acting on behalf of the US Bishops in plenary assembly. When will the US Bishops act in plenary assembly and tell their USCCB committee chairman to knock off the act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top