Bishop Dowling states "Catholic social teaching finds church leadership lacking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Having read the other article first (don’t bother–it’s totally irrelevant!), I was already somewhat upset about NCR when I read the second.

I can see his point, but otoh, I can totally see Rome’s point. We are in the process of moving on from the bishops who gave us everything from folk and rock Masses to the abuse scandal, and an utter breakdown of the Church!

Christ did not make the bishops Pope–He made *one man *Pope. Each level if the hierarchy of the Church is responsible not only for the material workings of the lower levels, but for the spiritual workings, and that is something which Bishop Dowling seems to be overlooking.

The higher levels are responsible for the souls in their care. If they personally are very saintly but are neglectful of their flock, the sins of the flock can be laid at their feet on judgement day.

And that whole thing about conscience? It’s supposed to be a *well-*developed conscience: a conscience in line with the moral truths which Christ teaches through the Church. Bishop Dowling has called upon the Church to “change its teaching” on the use of condoms, at least vis a vis AIDS… which shows that he does not understand the nature of truth, of Church teaching, or a well-formed conscience.

His Holiness (the Pope) obviously stayed true to Church teaching, and has in fact been proven correct, as the nations which emphasized abstinence have actually reduced their rates of AIDS transmissions. Meanwhile in South Africa, HIV rates continued to climb, to 30%, altho they may have reached a plateau as in the two following years there was a slight reduction.
 
St_Francis said:
Having read the other article first (don’t bother–it’s totally irrelevant!), I was already somewhat upset about NCR when I read the second.

I can see his point, but otoh, I can totally see Rome’s point. We are in the process of moving on from the bishops who gave us everything from folk and rock Masses to the abuse scandal, and an utter breakdown of the Church!

Christ did not make the bishops Pope–He made *one man *Pope. Each level if the hierarchy of the Church is responsible not only for the material workings of the lower levels, but for the spiritual workings, and that is something which Bishop Dowling seems to be overlooking.

The higher levels are responsible for the souls in their care. If they personally are very saintly but are neglectful of their flock, the sins of the flock can be laid at their feet on judgement day.

And that whole thing about conscience? It’s supposed to be a *well-*developed conscience: a conscience in line with the moral truths which Christ teaches through the Church. Bishop Dowling has called upon the Church to “change its teaching” on the use of condoms, at least vis a vis AIDS… which shows that he does not understand the nature of truth, of Church teaching, or a well-formed conscience.

His Holiness (the Pope) obviously stayed true to Church teaching, and has in fact been proven correct, as the nations which emphasized abstinence have actually reduced their rates of AIDS transmissions. Meanwhile in South Africa, HIV rates continued to climb, to 30%, altho they may have reached a plateau as in the two following years there was a slight reduction.
Click to expand...
If you want to read what is said to be the “inside scoop” of what happened during Vatican II with the Modernist Bishops, Cardinals and the Conservative Traditional clergy, read The Desolate City, Revolution in the Catholic Church by Anne Roche Muggeridge. I haven’t yet reached total dispair, but we have a long way to go to bring Our Church back to what it once was. :signofcross::signofcross::gopray::gopray: And a little outspokeness wouldn’t hurt either.
 
St. Francis,
Bishop Dowling was speaking to the issue of condom use between married couples where one person or the other has HIV-AIDS. It’s not about condom use in general - his argument dealt specifically with this pastoral situation.

Benedict and the church’s arguments re: condomn use are generally true. But what happens after the fact when one party or another is infected? Should they simply be told to abstain from sex all together? Not so simple is it?
 
tpw said:
St. Francis,
Bishop Dowling was speaking to the issue of condom use between married couples where one person or the other has HIV-AIDS. It’s not about condom use in general - his argument dealt specifically with this pastoral situation.
Click to expand...
I cannot find any evidence that his position on condom use is limited to married people. The South African bishops seem to have considered that idea, but they had previously condemned what Bishop Dowling said. It appears that he advocates condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention for all people, not just married people.
Benedict and the church’s arguments re: condomn use are generally true. But what happens after the fact when one party or another is infected? Should they simply be told to abstain from sex all together? Not so simple is it?
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what the complexity is? Should someone be injured in such a way, his or her spouse would also have to abstain from sex altogether, and there are many who have done so.
 
tpw said:
St. Francis,
Bishop Dowling was speaking to the issue of condom use between married couples where one person or the other has HIV-AIDS. It’s not about condom use in general - his argument dealt specifically with this pastoral situation.

Benedict and the church’s arguments re: condomn use are generally true. But what happens after the fact when one party or another is infected? Should they simply be told to abstain from sex all together? Not so simple is it?
Click to expand...
 
I am amazed at the responses to this article. It’s long, and I doubt it was read in it’s entirety. The other thread got hung up on the cappa magna and now we’re zoning in on the condom issue. (Both germane to the article, perhaps,) but does no one else see the general thrust of the bishop’s talk? A shepherd of the Church is openly encouraging dissent against the patriarchal and hierarchical Church and the papacy; further, he states in rather unambiguous terms that it is political and decries the orthodox and conservative churchmen within its ranks. Then, in closing, he basically tells us we may believe whatever our conscience dictates (regardless of church teaching) and takes the words of Ratzinger out of context to prove his dubious point.

I would think that at the very least, a reprimand would be coming from the top. Please pray for those who are weak in faith with no discernment, lest they be completely misled.
 
Tigg said:
I am amazed at the responses to this article. It’s long, and I doubt it was read in it’s entirety. The other thread got hung up on the cappa magna and now we’re zoning in on the condom issue. (Both germane to the article, perhaps,) but does no one else see the general thrust of the bishop’s talk? A shepherd of the Church is openly encouraging dissent against the patriarchal and hierarchical Church and the papacy; further, he states in rather unambiguous terms that it is political and decries the orthodox and conservative churchmen within its ranks. Then, in closing, he basically tells us we may believe whatever our conscience dictates (regardless of church teaching) and takes the words of Ratzinger out of context to prove his dubious point.

I would think that at the very least, a reprimand would be coming from the top. Please pray for those who are weak in faith with no discernment, lest they be completely misled.
Click to expand...
Regarding the bold: I wish we would hear more encouraging unity with Church teaching rather than dissent. 😦 I don’t want to see this one talk as the sum of what the Bishop teaches but Googling his earlier work isn’t very encouraging.

He has already been reprimanded by his own national Bishops conference for his advocacy of condoms (which BTW was not just about married couples since he specifically advocated condom distribution to prostitutes).

I guess I have trouble giving credence to a Bishop’s interpretation of Chuch teaching when he himself has opposed much of it.
 
Because Dowling poses a pastoral question he is now in dissent?

Because he suggests a style and pattern of leadership now over 30 years old rooted in the particular theologies, personalities and life experience of two popes and their style of ecclesiastical governance which fails to listen to pastoral concerns of national synods of bishops - he is in dissent?

Circling the wagons is not a sign of a thoughtful, confident church but fearful leadership uncertain of what it may discover if it listens.
 
tpw said:
Because Dowling poses a pastoral question he is now in dissent?

Because he suggests a style and pattern of leadership now over 30 years old rooted in the particular theologies, personalities and life experience of two popes and their style of ecclesiastical governance which fails to listen to pastoral concerns of national synods of bishops - he is in dissent?

Circling the wagons is not a sign of a thoughtful, confident church but fearful leadership uncertain of what it may discover if it listens.
Click to expand...
Posing a pastoral question would be different from rejecting an authentic and authoriative teaching, right?

Hypothetical here. If I say, as a Catholic, and as a Catholic bishop at that, “you know, in my country we don’t grow wheat, it is expensive and needs to be imported. Since the Eucharist is a meal, I’m going to say that in MY country, the eucharist will be confected with rice wafer because that is OUR food. Our needs are not being met, we are being hostage to 2000 year old holdovers from a totally different culture.”. . .um, is that hypothetical bishop posing a pastoral question even? No, he’s saying he totally rejects an authoritative Catholic teaching over the valid matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and HE is claiming it needs to be changed in HIS country for HIS people ‘needs’, because otherwise they are victims of unfair disrespect of their own culture.

Posing a pastoral question would be more like the bishop going to speak to the Pope and other bishops as a bishop, bringing up the question to them, and waiting for the answer, which, whether he likes it or not, he accepts.

Now, running offeth at the moutheth and acting as though being bishop of X makes him able to ignore, contravene and defy rules which he (incorrectly) thinks only apply to ‘other people’ or 'other times" which HE intends to change on HIS authority don’t make a bishop (IMO of course) posing ‘pastoral questions’ but rather trying to change teachings to suit himself.
 
Tigg said:
I am amazed at the responses to this article. It’s long, and I doubt it was read in it’s entirety. The other thread got hung up on the cappa magna and now we’re zoning in on the condom issue. (Both germane to the article, perhaps,) but does no one else see the general thrust of the bishop’s talk? A shepherd of the Church is openly encouraging dissent against the patriarchal and hierarchical Church and the papacy; further, he states in rather unambiguous terms that it is political and decries the orthodox and conservative churchmen within its ranks. Then, in closing, he basically tells us we may believe whatever our conscience dictates (regardless of church teaching) and takes the words of Ratzinger out of context to prove his dubious point.

I would think that at the very least, a reprimand would be coming from the top. Please pray for those who are weak in faith with no discernment, lest they be completely misled.
Click to expand...
This disregard of the Vatican began during and after Vatican II, started by a group of mondernist theologians, some Bishops. I would strongly suggest you read the book I have mentioned, The Desolate City, Revolution in the Catholic Church.
 
Tigg said:
I am amazed at the responses to this article. It’s long, and I doubt it was read in it’s entirety. The other thread got hung up on the cappa magna and now we’re zoning in on the condom issue. (Both germane to the article, perhaps,) but does no one else see the general thrust of the bishop’s talk? A shepherd of the Church is openly encouraging dissent against the patriarchal and hierarchical Church and the papacy; further, he states in rather unambiguous terms that it is political and decries the orthodox and conservative churchmen within its ranks. Then, in closing, he basically tells us we may believe whatever our conscience dictates (regardless of church teaching) and takes the words of Ratzinger out of context to prove his dubious point.

I would think that at the very least, a reprimand would be coming from the top. Please pray for those who are weak in faith with no discernment, lest they be completely misled.
Click to expand...
Tantum_ergo said:
Posing a pastoral question would be different from rejecting an authentic and authoriative teaching, right?

Hypothetical here. If I say, as a Catholic, and as a Catholic bishop at that, “you know, in my country we don’t grow wheat, it is expensive and needs to be imported. Since the Eucharist is a meal, I’m going to say that in MY country, the eucharist will be confected with rice wafer because that is OUR food. Our needs are not being met, we are being hostage to 2000 year old holdovers from a totally different culture.”. . .um, is that hypothetical bishop posing a pastoral question even? No, he’s saying he totally rejects an authoritative Catholic teaching over the valid matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and HE is claiming it needs to be changed in HIS country for HIS people ‘needs’, because otherwise they are victims of unfair disrespect of their own culture.

Posing a pastoral question would be more like the bishop going to speak to the Pope and other bishops as a bishop, bringing up the question to them, and waiting for the answer, which, whether he likes it or not, he accepts.

Now, running offeth at the moutheth and acting as though being bishop of X makes him able to ignore, contravene and defy rules which he (incorrectly) thinks only apply to ‘other people’ or 'other times" which HE intends to change on HIS authority don’t make a bishop (IMO of course) posing ‘pastoral questions’ but rather trying to change teachings to suit himself.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Yes, the bishop is in dissent which is public opposition to the Magisterium. This is very serious.
A defined doctrine on faith or morals must be firmly embraced and held, on the faith of the Church. (Canon 750 #2).
Even the laity must obey by assenting to the teaching of the Magisterium, no less than a bishop.
 
tpw said:
Because Dowling poses a pastoral question he is now in dissent?

Because he suggests a style and pattern of leadership now over 30 years old rooted in the particular theologies, personalities and life experience of two popes and their style of ecclesiastical governance which fails to listen to pastoral concerns of national synods of bishops - he is in dissent?

Circling the wagons is not a sign of a thoughtful, confident church but fearful leadership uncertain of what it may discover if it listens.
Click to expand...
No, because he says things like this, he’s *expressing *dissent. I hesitate to say “in dissent” because that denotes a more formal stage of separation.
For example, the issues of celibacy for the priesthood and the ordination of women, withdrawn even from the realm of discussion. Therefore, such pronouncements are open to scrutiny – to discern whether they are in accord, for example, with the fundamental theological vision of Vatican II, or whether there is indeed a case to be made for a different interpretation or opinion.
Click to expand...
The Church has undertaken exactly this discernment regarding both issues and evidently Bishop Dowling doesn’t like the decision. When one asks the question of “whether the teaching is in accord” and the answer from the Church is “yes”, what is the point of running around saying “but I wanted you to say ‘no’!”?

and this quote which could easily be interpreted as encouraging dissent:
At the heart of this is the question of conscience. As Catholics, we need to be trusted enough to make informed decisions about our life, our witness, our expressions of faith, spirituality, prayer, and involvement in the world – on the basis of a developed conscience.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top