E
edwest2
Guest
If Catholics aren’t listening to the Church it would be helpful to find out who they are listening to and why. 40 years ago, a lot of Catholics were boldly lied to.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
Bishop decries 'combative tactics' of a minority of U.S. bishops
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine. There is something that needs to be clarified here for everyone. I’m not takingt sides here, just teaching.
There are exempt religious institutes, congregations and orders. These do not owe fidelity to the local bishop. Their major superior is their Ordinary, not the local bishop. They are not part of the local Church where they reside. The bishop has no jurisdiction over them, nor does he have any pastoral obligation to them. They are not part of his flock.
The Congregation of the Holy Cross is one of those exempt institutes of religious life. They are pontifical. Their major superior answers only to the pope. They answer only to their major superior. No bishop has any obligation to them, not even to provide the sacraments to them. They in turn have no obligation to the bishop or the laity in the local diocese.
The only time that a religious community and a bishop have any obligation toward each other is when there is an agreement between the two that the religious community will provide some kind of service to the bishop, such as running one of his parishes or one of his institutions.
Notre Dame University was not founded by the diocese. It is not owned by the Catholic Church. It does not owe any allegiance to either the bishop or the Holy Cross Congregation. The Congregation of the Holy Cross are simply employed by Notre Dame. They have no authority over Notre Dame. The Congregation sold Notre Dame many years ago to a private non profit corporation.
The bishop can insist that any organization within the boundaries of his diocese not use the name Catholic. But he really has no authority to enforce it, unless it’s an institution that is owned either by the Vatica, the diocese, a religious congregation, a religious order, or a secular order. Since Notre Dame is not owned by any of the above, then no Catholic authority has jurisdiction over it.
Currently, they are allowed to use the name Catholic. If Bishop D’Arcy asked them not to use it, compliance would be the respectful thing to do, but there is no way that he can enforce it. This kind of conflict is to be avoided, if you know that the bishop is going to lose.
I hope this clarifies the relationship between a bishop and the people who reside within his diocese. They are not all his sheep and he is not the shepherd of all Catholics either, only those over whom he has authority and to whom his has a pastoral obligation. Most religious men are not the responsibility of the bishop nor are they bound to the bishop, unless they work for him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
Gretta1
Guest
Just to further comment on JReducation’s comments about ND, many colleges owned by, run by, or administered by religious orders do not refer to themselves as being “Catholic” colleges in their official descriptions or literature. This is because by law a college that officially uses the word “Catholic” is bound to certain canonical rules. So, you will have colleges that describe themselves as institutions of higher education being “in the Jesuit tradition” or “in the Dominican tradition” or whatever, but they do not describe themselves as Catholic.
And, while the bishop may have some oversight of a religious order’s apostolate, he is not the Superior of the group. Like any bishop he is owed respect, but those in the religious order’s vow of obedience is not to him but to the superior of the Order.
And, while the bishop may have some oversight of a religious order’s apostolate, he is not the Superior of the group. Like any bishop he is owed respect, but those in the religious order’s vow of obedience is not to him but to the superior of the Order.
M
MJE
Guest
The combative bishops actually used this incident as a teaching moment if they had authority or not. This bishop comes across as naive to the evil of abortion and the false teachers among the clergy.
J
JReducation
Guest
If I’m getting what the bishop is saying, what I wrote above about religious and universities is exactly what he’s talking about.
I don’t believe that he is approving what happened. He is disapproving of the manner in which some of his confreres responded. This takes us back to the key word, “exempt”.
Notre Dame is exempt from the authority of the local bishop.
The Holy Cross Congregation is exempt of the bishops.
Notre Dame is exempt from the authority of the Holy Cross Congregation, because it’s not their university any longer.
In light of the fact that you have these complexities, you cannot pound them (ND or the Holy Cross Brothers) because you do not have the authority to do so. When you do, you will come out looking very badly, because the first to take sides against you will be the Vatican. This is exactly what has happened. The Vatican has stepped very far back from the ND issue. Why? Because ND and the Holy Cross Congregation are exempt. They have to be dealt with in a different forum.
In the Vatican there is a department for Catholic education and Catholic universities. That may be a good place to take up this issue. There is also a department for religious. That may be a good place to take up the issue of Father Jenkins. There is also a department for the clergy. That too may be a good place to take up the issue with Father Jenkins.
Any other scenario is useless, because none of them have any real authority.
I love Bisho D’Arcy. But since the good bishop has no moral obligation to the Congregation of the Holy Cross, not even to hear their confessions, then he has no real authority over them. The relationship between them is based on one sole fact. They operate in the same city, not even in the same diocese. ND is not part of the diocese. It’s like the UN in NYC.
I believe that Bishop D’Arcy is more level headed than most people posting on this thread. He is not looking to slam ND. Neither is the bishop in the article. I believe that both bishops are on the same page. One bishop is saying this should not have happened and the other bishop is saying we’re Catholics, not marines. Let’s think before we jump.
I can live with both positions very comfortably.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I don’t believe that he is approving what happened. He is disapproving of the manner in which some of his confreres responded. This takes us back to the key word, “exempt”.
Notre Dame is exempt from the authority of the local bishop.
The Holy Cross Congregation is exempt of the bishops.
Notre Dame is exempt from the authority of the Holy Cross Congregation, because it’s not their university any longer.
In light of the fact that you have these complexities, you cannot pound them (ND or the Holy Cross Brothers) because you do not have the authority to do so. When you do, you will come out looking very badly, because the first to take sides against you will be the Vatican. This is exactly what has happened. The Vatican has stepped very far back from the ND issue. Why? Because ND and the Holy Cross Congregation are exempt. They have to be dealt with in a different forum.
In the Vatican there is a department for Catholic education and Catholic universities. That may be a good place to take up this issue. There is also a department for religious. That may be a good place to take up the issue of Father Jenkins. There is also a department for the clergy. That too may be a good place to take up the issue with Father Jenkins.
Any other scenario is useless, because none of them have any real authority.
I love Bisho D’Arcy. But since the good bishop has no moral obligation to the Congregation of the Holy Cross, not even to hear their confessions, then he has no real authority over them. The relationship between them is based on one sole fact. They operate in the same city, not even in the same diocese. ND is not part of the diocese. It’s like the UN in NYC.
I believe that Bishop D’Arcy is more level headed than most people posting on this thread. He is not looking to slam ND. Neither is the bishop in the article. I believe that both bishops are on the same page. One bishop is saying this should not have happened and the other bishop is saying we’re Catholics, not marines. Let’s think before we jump.
I can live with both positions very comfortably.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Brendan
Guest
One other point that you did not bring up, but has great bearing on this matter, is the role of the local bishop as the first tribunal in matters of Church law.
That is true for all baptized Catholics, regardless of their status as a religious institue…etc.
The question arises on if the prohibition listed in Ex corde Ecclesia against granting honors to those who publically disgree with key aspects of the Catholic Faith applied to Obama.
Fr. Jenkins indicated that he consulted with Canon Lawyers who indicated that it did not. But that course of action disregareded the role of the local Ordinary as the first tribunal in such matters.
Fr. Jenkins had an obligation to consult with +D’Arcy to get a ruling, and did not.
J
JReducation
Guest
What you’re saying is correct, but it needs one clarification. We religious are do not fall under that tribunal, because we do not fall under the bishop. The tribunal exists to protect the rights of the faithful. The bishop is the first instance. But bishops have no obligation to us or to protect us and our rights. In fact, they have been discouraged from doing so since the time of Pope Innocent III. Anytime that we need a tribunal, we have to go to the tribunal that is chosen by our major superior. Our first instance (tribunal) is always our major superior, never a bishop. That’s why our major superiors are always Ordinaries, even though they need not be priests, as long as they are male, in solemn vows and part of an exempt community.
Actually, Fr. Jenkins did follow the rules that are in place for religious. On a personal note, given the influence and magnitude of ND’s presence, I would have spoken with the bishop.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
Ender
Guest
This describes the prudential decision made some time ago by the US bishops: that they would not directly challenge politicians on the issue of abortion for fear that it would only make things worse. To which it is reasonable to ask: how’s that working so far and how much worse could things be?
This is really disingenuous but unfortunately what one has come to expect from our bishops. A “single issue”? Is that all abortion is now? How many such intrinsically evil issues must a Catholic politician support before it is appropriate to sanction him? Two? Five? This is in fact not a political decision, it is a moral one: do the bishops take seriously their obligations to protect not only the sanctity of the Eucharist but also the souls of those who receive it inappropriately?
What this has come to mean is accommodating ourselves with evil. It is another meaningless phrase, the bumper sticker mentality used where there is no rational argument to be made.
We have abortion in this country because Catholics happily endorse the politicians who support it, just as our bishops do.
Ender
R
RobbyS
Guest
“A ‘single issue’? Is that all abortion is now.” It is to the Archbishop. Which means he thinks more like a politician than a priest. At least he is standing and showing he is a man whom we should not follow . I hope my bishop doesn’t feel the same way.
T
Tigg
Guest
You are correct, Ed…in some cases by their own priests who were in a state of rebellion over Humanae Vitae. I happen to be one of them (but, gratefully in the Lord’s mercy was given the grace to reject the lie.) We really cannot put the onus on the people. Not for the shambles of huge percentages of divorced and re-married Catholics receiving the Sacraments, nor for the fact that 54% of them voted for a radical pro-abort candidate, nor for the fact that a large portion do not even know what their Church teaches. The faithful need instruction and guidance in moral truth which they simply are not getting. However did the shift happen within the bishops circle to make politics their priority?
C
Contarini
Guest
One of the problems that developed in the Middle Ages and which allowed the Reformers to delude themselves that they were *bringing *unity to the Church. Trent addressed the problem but clearly didn’t solve it.
If a bishop isn’t the pastor of all the Catholics within the geographical boundaries of his diocese, then your talk about the unity of the Church is empty. And this controversy shows that I’m not just being a legalistic polity nut here–there are consequences to this division of the Christian community within a place.
Edwin
J
JReducation
Guest
This is not a division. This is a matter of infrastructure. Cetain areas of jurisdiction belong to certain people. In this case, the university does not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop, not even under the jurisdiction of the Holy Cross congregation, because they do not own it either.
The university falls under the jurisdiction of those who own it. That’s not division, that’s called justice. We have to remain united in justice. If those who own it have control over it and they have a commitment to Catholic education, they must run the university according to that commitment. The rest of the world has the righ to expect that they run the school according to what they say in their mission statement.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
manualman
Guest
Sorry JR, but Contarini’s devastating critique cannot be dimissed with creative vocabulary.
You may be technically right, but there is a moral imperitive for a religious community to recall that it’s very reason for existence is to glorify God and serve him. You are again technically correct that the right way to address this is for Rome to deal with it through the Congregation. But you and I BOTH know that Rome takes a minimum of 15 years before taking any sort of disciplinary action on anything. Look how long it took for them to examine the hideous mess in seminaries and certain women’s religious communities.
Do you honestly see Jesus taking a petition to the high priests and Pharisees to protest the inappropriate financial corruptions that had crept into the temple? I don’t. I see him doing something rather more forceful. Kind of like bishop D’Arcy did. He saw an abominable scandal being committed against the faithful (again) and actually DID something about it.
You can say it was foolish for him to act when he had no jurisdiction and the cards were stacked against him. But would you have said the same to Jesus when he sent 12 fisherman, fools and knaves off to rock the world?
M
mlchance
Guest
Which requires all Catholics everywhere to give the Church her due and thus abide by the teachings of the Magisterium. By bestowing honors on President Obama, the Catholic leadership of Notre Dame – no matter who owns the property – failed in their duty to justice.
– Mark L. Chance.
J
JimG
Guest
Thanks for your explanation of the canonical jurisdictions, or lack thereof, involved in the situation.
What it comes down to is apparently this: Notre Dame isn’t really a Catholic university, because it is not under the jurisdiction of the local bishop or of the Holy Cross congregation. So it can pretty much do what it wants.
Trouble is, most Catholics, let alone the surrounding civil society, don’t understand that. To the general public, Notre Dame has always been seen as a Catholic university, with a prominent statue of Our Lady on campus.
So when this seemingly (but not really) Catholic university gives honor to a pro-abortion president, and allows him to state without rebuttal, that pro-choice is essentially a non-negotiable item, what does the rest of the world think, but “abortion can’t be that bad if he can be the honored speaker at a great Catholic university.”
I wish that the president of Notre Dame had clearly stated the points that you have made. Father Jenkings might have simply said, “Look, we’re not under Bishop D’Arcy’s jurisdiction. We didn’t consult with him or ask him, nor are we required to. We are not under the jurisdiction of the Holy Cross Congregation. In fact, you can hardly call us Catholic. So please don’t get so upset when we honor a pro-abortion speaker with an honorary degree.”
That might have been more straightforward, as well as instructive.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
For those interested, St. Augustine’s Press just released a new book:
What Happened to Notre Dame? by Charles E. Rice.
It probably gives you more information than you ever wanted to know about the Obama Commencement event, the causes and the cure.
What Happened to Notre Dame? by Charles E. Rice.
It probably gives you more information than you ever wanted to know about the Obama Commencement event, the causes and the cure.
E
edwest2
Guest
In 1970, Time published a cover story that outlined why some religious were leaving the Church. Getting rid of celibacy for priests was one point of contention. If you check your history of Catholic institutions of higher learning, you’ll note that religious leaders were gradually replaced with secular ones. As I read recently in the Michigan Catholic: “How can someone give to his students something authentically Catholic if he doesn’t have it to give?”
Starting in the late 1960s, with the Hippies, Catholics in the pews along with some religious, were powerfully distracted from God. Hippies were living with their girlfriends in sin or just performing ‘natural acts’ with whoever. This was followed by the legalization of graphic pornography, followed by the legalization of abortion, followed by No-Fault Divorce.
As Catholics began to walk away from God, they did not stop to realize how far away they were until they ended up living as Agnostics or pagans. Most of the Catholics I know are living disordered sexual lives. Loneliness is a real issue but it isn’t being solved by love but by sex.
To further rend asunder the proper relationship between men and women, a powerful propaganda group called the National Organization for Women told all women that they would be the eternal victims of all men.
If you look at where Catholics failed, it was in the proper relationship between males and females. Of the turning away from love to ‘just sex.’ If you look at most of the problems confronting society today, they hinge on the family whose destruction was ordered in the 1960s.
If you read the time article, you’ll see religious who were not happy with their work and wanted something else. I cannot judge their actions but it suggests they were either not going to their superiors for a fruitful dialogue and guidance or to God for guidance.
Just reeducating Catholics is not the whole answer. We, as Catholics, have got to turn off the TV, stop going to more fornication movies or where divorce is no big deal movies, listen to Catholic radio, read Catholic publications and diligently seek God. All the education in the world will not help if we continue to meditate in front of the TV over the sinful, the profoundly dysfunctional, the profane, the pornographic and all the words and images that are 100% against what our education in the faith tells us.
Politics is generally having the ‘power’ to make large groups of people do what you want them to do. And being associated with ‘powerful’ people is sometimes seductive.
Peace,
Ed
S
soflochristmas
Guest
Waaaah…talk about pure hatred…how about what we put up with by having a pro abortionist talk at a “Catholic” university? Now that’s hatred and “contempt”.
J
JReducation
Guest
I didn’t say that ND is not a Catholic university. I said that it is not the property of the Catholic Church. Most Catholic institutions and ministries are not owned by the Catholic Church. Any canonical authority in the Church can authorize the use of the title Catholic.
For example, EWTN is not owned by the Catholic Church. It is a private non profit corporation. CAF is not owned by the Catholic Church. It is a private non profit corporation owned by a lay and secular group. Institutions owned by religious orders are not owned by the Church either. They are owned by the order or by a religious congregation.
In the USA there are only two universities owned by the Catholic Church: The Catholic University of America, which is owned by the Vatican and the Josephenum School of Theology, which is also owned by the Vatican.
Franciscan University is Catholic, but it is owned by the Franciscan Third Order, not by the Church. However, the Franciscan Third Order is a canonical order. They are canonically Catholic. Therefore, anything they own and operate is Catholic; but not subject to the local bishop or the national conference of bishops. In this case, the aforementioned university answers to the Third Order Fraciscans who in turn answer to their superior general.
We have to be careful whom we say is or is not Catholic. ND is indeed a Catholic school. It is owned and operated by a secular and lay non profit private corporation, just like EWTN and CAF.
When the Church does not own an organization or institution it does ot have legal authority over it. However, since the Church lends it its name, Catholic, it does have moral authority. The problem is that moral authority is not easy to enforce. The Catholic Church has moral authority over all of our homes too; but where are you going to find a bishop who has the authority to tell you how to raise your family or how to manage your family affairs?
The whole issue of moral authority depends on the good will of the individuals involved. In this case the organization that owns ND is expected to have the good faith and good will to work within the parameters of Catholic teaching, not because the Church has legal authority, but because they are part of the Church.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
For example, EWTN is not owned by the Catholic Church. It is a private non profit corporation. CAF is not owned by the Catholic Church. It is a private non profit corporation owned by a lay and secular group. Institutions owned by religious orders are not owned by the Church either. They are owned by the order or by a religious congregation.
In the USA there are only two universities owned by the Catholic Church: The Catholic University of America, which is owned by the Vatican and the Josephenum School of Theology, which is also owned by the Vatican.
Franciscan University is Catholic, but it is owned by the Franciscan Third Order, not by the Church. However, the Franciscan Third Order is a canonical order. They are canonically Catholic. Therefore, anything they own and operate is Catholic; but not subject to the local bishop or the national conference of bishops. In this case, the aforementioned university answers to the Third Order Fraciscans who in turn answer to their superior general.
We have to be careful whom we say is or is not Catholic. ND is indeed a Catholic school. It is owned and operated by a secular and lay non profit private corporation, just like EWTN and CAF.
When the Church does not own an organization or institution it does ot have legal authority over it. However, since the Church lends it its name, Catholic, it does have moral authority. The problem is that moral authority is not easy to enforce. The Catholic Church has moral authority over all of our homes too; but where are you going to find a bishop who has the authority to tell you how to raise your family or how to manage your family affairs?
The whole issue of moral authority depends on the good will of the individuals involved. In this case the organization that owns ND is expected to have the good faith and good will to work within the parameters of Catholic teaching, not because the Church has legal authority, but because they are part of the Church.
I hope this helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
RobbyS
Guest
Let’s not get caught up in legalisms. What happened at Notre Dam as what happened at the Kennedy mass was a demonstration of the power of the liberal Catholic establishment in the United States. Many people, like the archbishop, do not wish to be disturbed by the thought that many Catholics are not, in their hearts, in union with the Holy See. Nothing unusual in this. The French bishops of the 18th Century were not inclined to listen to Rome, except in the formal terms you are using here. Likewise the bigshots at ND, the president and the board, are not about to listen to the bishop of a smallish diocese, nor even to the Cardinal archbishop of Chicago. They can do whatever they d****d well please, they think. Cardinal McCarrick can do what he did knowing that though he can be dispossessed of his see, he is still a top dog, and as for “Boston,” he is a weakling. .The bold is mine. There is something that needs to be clarified here for everyone. I’m not takingt sides here, just teaching.
There are exempt religious institutes, congregations and orders. These do not owe fidelity to the local bishop. Their major superior is their Ordinary, not the local bishop. They are not part of the local Church where they reside. The bishop has no jurisdiction over them, nor does he have any pastoral obligation to them. They are not part of his flock.
The Congregation of the Holy Cross is one of those exempt institutes of religious life. They are pontifical. Their major superior answers only to the pope. They answer only to their major superior. No bishop has any obligation to them, not even to provide the sacraments to them. They in turn have no obligation to the bishop or the laity in the local diocese.
The only time that a religious community and a bishop have any obligation toward each other is when there is an agreement between the two that the religious community will provide some kind of service to the bishop, such as running one of his parishes or one of his institutions.
Notre Dame University was not founded by the diocese. It is not owned by the Catholic Church. It does not owe any allegiance to either the bishop or the Holy Cross Congregation. The Congregation of the Holy Cross are simply employed by Notre Dame. They have no authority over Notre Dame. The Congregation sold Notre Dame many years ago to a private non profit corporation.
The bishop can insist that any organization within the boundaries of his diocese not use the name Catholic. But he really has no authority to enforce it, unless it’s an institution that is owned either by the Vatica, the diocese, a religious congregation, a religious order, or a secular order. Since Notre Dame is not owned by any of the above, then no Catholic authority has jurisdiction over it.
Currently, they are allowed to use the name Catholic. If Bishop D’Arcy asked them not to use it, compliance would be the respectful thing to do, but there is no way that he can enforce it. This kind of conflict is to be avoided, if you know that the bishop is going to lose.
I hope this clarifies the relationship between a bishop and the people who reside within his diocese. They are not all his sheep and he is not the shepherd of all Catholics either, only those over whom he has authority and to whom his has a pastoral obligation. Most religious men are not the responsibility of the bishop nor are they bound to the bishop, unless they work for him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status