Bishop decries 'combative tactics' of a minority of U.S. bishops

[Sonny1954]

Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Sante Fe has publically commented on what he described as a “combative minority” of his fellow Bishops who denounced the Notre Dame University for inviting the President of the United States to give its commencement address and awarding him an honorary degree. Archbishop Sheehan described their reaction as “hysterical” and “counterproductive.”

Archbishop Sheehan also warned that this minority of Catholics threaten to isolate the Catholic community from the larger society, an occurence which would benefit neither the Catholic Church nor the United States. He also disagrees with threatening excomminication or the witholding Communion for a Catholic public figure over a single issue. We ought to be building bridges he said, not burning them.

When he was asked if there were other bishops who agreed with him, Archbishop Sheehan replied, “Of course, the majority.” :clapping::clapping:

---

*Quotations are from the National Catholic Reporter, August 26, 2009

 

[Joe_5859]

You should probably link to the article:

ncronline.org/news/politics/bishop-decries-combative-tactics-minority-us-bishops

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Throughout history, the faithful have always been in the minority.

 

[Sonny1954]

While I too am proud to be a “Papist” (to use a 19th century “Know-Nothing” term) I think I would react strongly and swiftly were it directed at me as a term of derision.

There is nothing inherently sanctifying about being in the minority, e.g. Holocaust Deniers, the Flat Earth Society, etc. There is something comforting though about people who approach a difficult issue with reason. And in that case, it matters not if the reasonable person speaks for the minority or the majority.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Old news

 

[Marsha_Adams]

You are absolutely correct, there is nothing “inherently” sanctifying about being in a minority. But it is still true that historically the faithful have always been in the minority.

 

[JimG]

The only bishop that counts in this case is the bishop in whose diocese Notre Dame was located, and who was neither consulted nor advised, until after the fact, as the the Obama invitation.

That bishop strongly denounced the award given to Obama and was joined in this opinion by a good number of brother bishops. In any case, the bishop who has jurisdiction over the diocese should have been consulted.

I would expect NCR to look for dissent among bishops and to bring it to the forefront in order to divide the Church. Precisely Obama’s objective, as well.

 

[Lujack]

The only bishop that counts in this case is the bishop in whose diocese Notre Dame was located, and who was neither consulted nor advised, until after the fact, as the the Obama invitation.

Not true. The University of Notre Dame answers to the Congregation of the Holy Cross, not to the bishop of the diocese in which they are located. Therefore, all the bishops of the United States count equally in this case, because none of them have special authority over Notre Dame.

 

[JimG]

Not true. The University of Notre Dame answers to the Congregation of the Holy Cross, not to the bishop of the diocese in which they are located. Therefore, all the bishops of the United States count equally in this case, because none of them have special authority over Notre Dame.

I am not speaking of academic jurisdictional lines. Every Catholic located in a diocese owes fidelity to the bishop of that diocese. Even in the lack of formal academic jurisdiction, it would have been common courtesy for a Catholic congregation operating Bishop D’Arcy’s diocese to inform him of their intention to honor a pro-abortion president.

But then the National Catholic Reporter, located in Bishop Finn’s diocese, probably doesn’t keep in too close touch with him either! It would be a good thing, perhaps, for the NCR to do such an interview with the two nearby bishops: Bishop Finn of KC, Mo, and Archbishop Naumann of KC, KS.

 

[Corki]

Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Sante Fe has publically commented on what he described as a “combative minority” of his fellow Bishops who denounced the Notre Dame University for inviting the President of the United States to give its commencement address and awarding him an honorary degree. Archbishop Sheehan described their reaction as “hysterical” and “counterproductive.”

Archbishop Sheehan also warned that this minority of Catholics threaten to isolate the Catholic community from the larger society, an occurence which would benefit neither the Catholic Church nor the United States. He also disagrees with threatening excomminication or the witholding Communion for a Catholic public figure over a single issue. We ought to be building bridges he said, not burning them.

When he was asked if there were other bishops who agreed with him, Archbishop Sheehan replied, “Of course, the majority.” :clapping::clapping:

---

*Quotations are from the National Catholic Reporter, August 26, 2009

Perhaps the good Archbishop of Sante Fe is not remembering correctly the most recent meeting of the USCCB.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33898

The USCCB does not officially endorse a statement that the majority of bishops oppose.

“The bishops of the United States express our appreciation and support for our brother bishop, the Most Reverend John D’Arcy,” reads the brief statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

“We affirm his pastoral concern for Notre Dame University, his solicitude for its Catholic identity, and his loving care for all those the Lord has given him to sanctify, to teach and to shepherd.”

I believe that Archbishop Sheehan brings the number of bishops who openly suported Notre Dames invitation and criticized Bishop D’Arcy’s response to a grand total of “2”.

Although an unprecedented number of bishops had concurred in varying degrees that Notre Dame was wrong to invite President Obama, a much smaller number of bishops expressed dissatisfaction with the public condemnations. Only one bishop, Archbishop Emeritus John Quinn of San Francisco, had openly taken a stance defensive of Notre Dame and President Obama in the weeks leading up to commencement.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Not true. The University of Notre Dame answers to the Congregation of the Holy Cross, not to the bishop of the diocese in which they are located. Therefore, all the bishops of the United States count equally in this case, because none of them have special authority over Notre Dame.

Wrong. Every religious order must have the permission of the local Ordinary to reside in the diocese. Bishop D’Arcy could tell them to get out of his diocese – or just to get that particular Priest out of his diocese.

And it seems like the good Bishop is not dropping the issue: zenit.org/article-26677?l=english

 

[Corki]

Wrong. Every religious order must have the permission of the local Ordinary to reside in the diocese. Bishop D’Arcy could tell them to get out of his diocese – or just to get that particular Priest out of his diocese.

He also can revoke the facities of the priest to say Mass, hear confessions, and preside at weddings. The latter is big business on the ND campus. Maybe that would get his attention.

 

[threeboys]

Here is a direct link to the Bishop D’Arcy’s most recent comments on Notre Dame

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11840

 

[JimG]

Here is a direct link to the Bishop D’Arcy’s most recent comments on Notre Dame

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11840

The failure to dialogue with the bishop brings a second series of questions. What is the relationship of the Catholic university to the local bishop? No relationship? Someone who occasionally offers Mass on campus? Someone who sits on the platform at graduation? Or is the bishop the teacher in the diocese, responsible for souls, including the souls of students—in this case, the students at Notre Dame? Does the responsibility of the bishop to teach, to govern and to sanctify end at the gate of the university? In the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which places the primary responsibility on the institution, I am proposing these questions for the university.
–Bishop John D’Arcy, writing in America magazine.

 

[Lujack]

I’m done with this thread. The pure hatred for the University of Notre Dame, and the contempt for the religiosity of every priest there is dripping of the page. Its disgusting.

 

[JimG]

I’m done with this thread. The pure hatred for the University of Notre Dame, and the contempt for the religiosity of every priest there is dripping of the page. Its disgusting.

Disagreement with a particular policy decision does not equate to hate or contempt either for the university or its staff. It is just quite discouraging that a Catholic university would grant an honor to a pro-abortion speaker. Apparently, at least some 70 U.S. bishops agree, but that does not constitute hate or contempt.

 

[anode]

Let me say that Sheehan is not a ‘liberal’. He is conservative, if anything. He was brought on board to clean up New Mexico after its last fiasco with his archbishop and he instituted devotions such as the rosary, novenas, holy hours, etc. He is by no means a ‘liberal’.

 

[Tigg]

This article disturbs me because we lived in NM for a few years and generally thought of Sheehan as conservative on most points.

And you can get so much done when you have collaboration and you build the bridge with other people, whether it’s priests or laypeople, deacons, whoever.”

I wonder, collaboration or capitulation?

 

[manualman]

This is nothing new. We’ve always had good bishops and bad ones and ones in between. They are humans like we are individually.

History will remember abortion-excusing bishops the same way it remembers those bishops who were complicit with the institution of slavery, inquisitorial abuses, etc. It has always been easier to sell out the faith than to be a “disreputable” prophet.

It is amazing to me that even bishops fall for the fallacious reasoning that abortion is no different an issue than food stamps. Unreal.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m done with this thread. The pure hatred for the University of Notre Dame, and the contempt for the religiosity of every priest there is dripping of the page. Its disgusting.

Are we reading the same thread? I don’t think I would classify any post on this thread as “dripping” with “pure hatred”.

You brought up a point to which there is some truth: that Notre Dame is not run by the Diocese of Fort Worth, nor by diocesan priests. Others pointed out that, even though this is a case, they still have certain obligations to the bishop of the diocese (for example, they need to have the bishop’s permission to be there, they need to follow the liturgical guidelines the local bishop sets forth, etc.)

It is probably true that Notre Dame is not required to clear it through the bishop before they pass out honorary degrees. But it does seem like it would be proper etiquette to run it by him in situations like this that are so potentially polarizing.