Bishops too involved in US Politics?

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sailor, I can’t help if for some reason you can’t grasp how the definition in my own words does not matter. I have Christ’s words.

Because I am not a Native American nor were my ancesters who “invaded” our borders. I am honored for the privilige to live in the greatest melting pot of the world even though I think our conservative politics can be extremely whacky at times. True my ancestors went thru the proper channels. But I do not support deporting undocumented people who are here and tearing apart families when their children are American born citizens. How horrible and unnecessarily painful and sad that would be for their precious children. Peace and God bless you.

There can be no peace if laws are broken to suit people’s whims.

Do you believe we must obey the laws of our Constitution, or are they to be tossed aside, as no other nation’s laws are tossed aside?

And what on earth is a ‘native American’ anyway? The aboriginals that some scientists claim inhabited this continent before Asians came over the land bridge?

You utterly refused to respond to any of my questions about law, about abortion, about anything.

What is specifically conservative about guaranteeing a right to be alive? Try to explain just one of your points in your own words.

Immigrants are wonderful.

However, Illegal aliens swarming over the borders are not immigrants.

Their lawbreaking means of arrival constitute a slap in the face, not only to every native-born person, but to those made the effort, and who struggled to go through proper channels.

They represent a clear and present danger on a number of fronts, not the least of which is to broadcast to everyone that OUR LAWS ARE MEANINGLESS.

You keep saying ‘help the poor.’ How will the poor be helped if the producers of this nation bankrupt themselves to support criminals?

Have you heard the term ‘anchor baby?’ Assuming you’re going to allow a baby to live, that seems like a cold and callous way to use a life.

PS: Let’s get one thing utterly clear. CHOICE does not equal abortion. Those words are not interchangeable. The murder of an unborn baby is not the same as deciding what color car you want to drive. The use of the word ‘choice’ to describe a killing is deliberate and it will no longer be tolerated by many of us.

And if I were a liberal, believe me, I’d know it.

 

[CMatt25]

But you seem to want us to ignore the Cathecism and rely instead on your personal interpreation of a few Verse from Mathew. Quite franky your comment that Jesus never mentions abortions is a real puzzler to me. It is the kind of argument we hear all the time from homosexual apologists as to why homosexuality is OK.

estebob, no you’re better and much more perfect than me. I don’t pretend to hold a candle next to you in your assent. So I’m not telling you to ignore anything. If you believe you must not ignore any of the catechism to be a more perfect Christian than me, by all means follow your conscience. And God bless you as you do and peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Brendan, when biology can prove to those who disagree with us and to the plurality or majority who do not want abortion totally outlawed in the early stages, or in cases of rape or incest or when a mother’s health is at risk, as to the soul entering the embryo at the very moment of conception, then maybe that will be enough for the other ppl.

 

[estesbob]

estebob, no you’re better and much more perfect than me. I don’t pretend to hold a candle next to you in your assent. So I’m not telling you to ignore anything. If you believe you must not ignore any of the catechism to be a more perfect Christian than me, by all means follow your conscience. And God bless you as you do and peace.

Actually, like is expected of all Catholics my conscience is formed by the teaching of the Church. If , OTH, we are just going to pick up Scripture and draw our own conclusions based only on what Jesus said there really is no need for a church.

 

[CMatt25]

Sailor, I’ve responded. You just don’t like my responses and for some reason you seem more interested about my own words rather than Christ’s. I’ve told you repeatedly Whose definition I prescribe to.

So regarding the undocumented, what would you suggest we do with them? Cast them back across the border like some animal? Toss them in prison? In either case break up their families? I’m certain you understand under the Constitution the children of these human beings are American citizens. You don’t care that we break up families in the process? You don’t care if we cause such pain and suffering to these little precious American children? You sure are worried enough about before the child comes out of the womb. And that presents another problem.

Too many ppl seem more worried about the womb, but less about the children once out of the womb. Protect the womb. But once outside, hey I don’t want to pay tax dollars to provide support for the needs of the children I so vehemently demanded be carried to term. I forced my religious beliefs onto you. But sorry. Now you’re on your own. I’d rather go bankrupt by killing people in war. Or they sure don’t want the government taxing them. Stay out of my life except in privacy matters and the bedroom. In those areas, government stick your nose in there.

See Sailor, I didn’t hear a peep out of these folks when we were going bankrupt in war. And oh give a tax cut to the wealthiest too while we’re at it. We only have 2 wars to pay for. No big deal. But social programs for the benefit of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the hungry. Oh my. No no no no no. Can not do. Sailor, some of us are not going to tolerate this thinking either.

But you are correct about choice not equaling abortion. It equals what it says it does. It equals choice. And lets make one other thing clear while you’re at it. Pro choice DOES NOT equal pro abortion. I’m sorry but I am so tired of hearing people say otherwise. Not everyone pro choice is pro abortion. I abhor abortion. But we live in a democracy of plural beliefs on this. You do realize, don’t you, there are many Christian churches, perhaps ecclesial communities to you, who disagree with the Catholic Church’s position. So perhaps we Catholics would be better served to expend our energies doing what we can on this. Not a total ban. Perhaps keeping it legal under some circumstances in our democracy and safe. But doing what we can to indeed make it rare. Supporting more programs for the poor and for child care after birth might be a good way to start.

Peace to you Sailor.

 

[diggerdomer]

Bishops, Priests, Nuns, Catholic Theologians must adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” - just like the rest of us.

They can not take any writings of the Pope out of context, and the Bishops have no authority without agreement of the Pope.
Paragraph 883 CCC, 2nd Edition.

Jesus did not mix individual responsibilties with that of governmental responsibilities. The Bishops should not either.

Bishops should only be involved in political issues that are proven to have grave moral consequences.
In their area of responsibility - strengthening the Church in the United States –
• catechesis of cradle Catholics and all others in accord with the Church Catechism and Canon law;
• opposing taxpayer funded abortion and euthanasia;
• supporting conscience clauses for those in the medical profession, and for charitable organizations (freedom of Religion);
• opposing gay marriage (sodomy);
Global warming and Social Justice WITHIN the United States are merely secondary smoke screens that detract from the real work of the Church that needs to be done

Regarding CCC 883…careful, it does not say “without agreement of the Pope.” It says that Bishops must maintain communion with the Pope…a much broader and vaguer (some would say) criterion.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that “Bishops should only be involved in political issues that are proven to have grave moral consequences.”? Or is that just your opinion? I wasn’t clear, thanks for any clarification.

 

[CMatt25]

Actually, like is expected of all Catholics my conscience is formed by the teaching of the Church. If , OTH, we are just going to pick up Scripture and draw our own conclusions based only on what Jesus said there really is no need for a church.

estesbob, by all means inform your conscience. But if your conscience still dissents,
you could always follow the document on the *Church in the Modern World * where it stated clearly the important role of conscience in the life of the Christian…

"Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves and which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity rests in observing this law, and by it they will be judged. Their conscience is people’s most secret core, and their sanctuary. **There they are alone with God **whose voice echoes in their depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor.

Or even follow Benedict when he was still Joseph Ratznger…

**“Over the pope **as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority”

Not Ratzinger? Maybe JP2?

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

Or if you insist on Catechism, you could always follow these 2 sentences from the Catechism…

1790 **A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. **

Again God bless you estesbob and peace be with you as you journey with Him.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Sailor, I’ve responded. You just don’t like my responses and for some reason you seem more interested about my own words rather than Christ’s. I’ve told you repeatedly Whose definition I prescribe to.

So regarding the undocumented, what would you suggest we do with them? Cast them back across the border like some animal? Toss them in prison? In either case break up their families? I’m certain you understand under the Constitution the children of these human beings are American citizens. You don’t care that we break up families in the process? You don’t care if we cause such pain and suffering to these little precious American children? You sure are worried enough about before the child comes out of the womb. And that presents another problem.

Too many ppl seem more worried about the womb, but less about the children once out of the womb. Protect the womb. But once outside, hey I don’t want to pay tax dollars to provide support for the needs of the children I so vehemently demanded be carried to term. I forced my religious beliefs onto you. But sorry. Now you’re on your own. I’d rather go bankrupt by killing people in war. Or they sure don’t want the government taxing them. Stay out of my life except in privacy matters and the bedroom. In those areas, government stick your nose in there.

See Sailor, I didn’t hear a peep out of these folks when we were going bankrupt in war. And oh give a tax cut to the wealthiest too while we’re at it. We only have 2 wars to pay for. No big deal. But social programs for the benefit of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the hungry. Oh my. No no no no no. Can not do. Sailor, some of us are not going to tolerate this thinking either.

But you are correct about choice not equaling abortion. It equals what it says it does. It equals choice. And lets make one other thing clear while you’re at it. Pro choice DOES NOT equal pro abortion. I’m sorry but I am so tired of hearing people say otherwise. Not everyone pro choice is pro abortion. I abhor abortion. But we live in a democracy of plural beliefs on this. You do realize, don’t you, there are many Christian churches, perhaps ecclesial communities to you, who disagree with the Catholic Church’s position. So perhaps we Catholics would be better served to expend our energies doing what we can on this. Not a total ban. Perhaps keeping it legal under some circumstances in our democracy and safe. But doing what we can to indeed make it rare. Supporting more programs for the poor and for child care after birth might be a good way to start.

Peace to you Sailor.

You seem to be an anti-Constitutionalist, moral relativist, yet you are unwilling to clarify your position.

I am against breaking our laws and letting in illegal aliens. I’ve stated my reasons. And why are you not thanking God that some were willing to give their lives that YOU might complain about their sacrifice? As to your other points:

There is NEVER, EVER!!! on the face of this earth, ANY reason to keep abortion legal. Are you quoting Bill Clinton?

Whoever you are quoting this time, you have calibrated both yourself and your responses.

Abortion is murder, and promoting it under any circumstances is a horrible sin. And though I am a garden-variety sinner, I struggle to understand and obey Holy Mother Church.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob, by all means inform your conscience. But if your conscience still dissents,
you could always follow the document on the *Church in the Modern World *where it stated clearly the important role of conscience in the life of the Christian…

"Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves and which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity rests in observing this law, and by it they will be judged. Their conscience is people’s most secret core, and their sanctuary. **There they are alone with God **whose voice echoes in their depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor.

Or even follow Benedict when he was still Joseph Ratznger…

**“Over the pope **as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority”

Not Ratzinger? Maybe JP2?

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

Or if you insist on Catechism, you could always follow these 2 sentences from the Catechism…

1790 **A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. **

Again God bless you estesbob and peace be with you as you journey with Him.

Of course we have to follow our consciences-a conscience formed by the Teachings of the Church.

 

[CMatt25]

And why are you not thanking God that some were willing to give their lives that YOU might complain about their sacrifice?

First of all you don’t know what I thank God for in my prayers and secondly you’ve obviously missed some of my posts on the forum.

 

[CMatt25]

Of course we have to follow our consciences-a conscience formed by the Teachings of the Church.

As I’ve repeatedly said, by every means inform your conscience. Study Church teachings. Inform your conscience of Church teachings. Study Scripture. Pray. Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Contemplate. Repeat all of these things. And pray some more. Do these things as long as it takes to discern. But in the end you’re not following your conscience if after all of that it still dissents and you only follow what another human being puts into your brain. That’s not following your conscience at all in that case. God bless and peace.

 

[estesbob]

As I’ve repeatedly said, by every means inform your conscience. Study Church teachings. Inform your conscience of Church teachings. Study Scripture. Pray. Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Contemplate. Repeat all of these things. And pray some more. Do these things as long as it takes to discern. But in the end you’re not following your conscience if after all of that it still dissents and you only follow what another human being puts into your brain. That’s not following your conscience at all in that case. God bless and peace.

I guess that where we differ-I dont consider the Church to be just another human being puting things in my brain.

 

[CMatt25]

I guess that where we differ-I dont consider the Church to be just another human being puting things in my brain.

Estebob and that is fine. You are following your conscience then. Peace.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Yet you and others fault Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for doing that very same thing…let me guess, it only works if you are a modernists liberal following your conscience…right?

estesbob, by all means inform your conscience. But if your conscience still dissents,
you could always follow the document on the *Church in the Modern World * where it stated clearly the important role of conscience in the life of the Christian…

"Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law which they have not laid upon themselves and which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity rests in observing this law, and by it they will be judged. Their conscience is people’s most secret core, and their sanctuary. **There they are alone with God **whose voice echoes in their depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one’s neighbor.

Or even follow Benedict when he was still Joseph Ratznger…

**“Over the pope **as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed above all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority”

Not Ratzinger? Maybe JP2?

“If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church.” (Pope John Paul II)

ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

Or if you insist on Catechism, you could always follow these 2 sentences from the Catechism…

1790 **A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. **

Again God bless you estesbob and peace be with you as you journey with Him.

 

[LookAWayDixieLd]

This is what the Pope has called the Priest and bishops to do.

Pope Explains Authority and the Priesthood
zenit.org/article-29387?l=english

VATICAN CITY, MAY 26, 2010 (Zenit.org).-

"Says Role of Clergy Is That of Guide, Teacher

"The Pope cannot do whatever he wants, and instead must obey Christ and his Church, Benedict XVI says.

The Holy Father made this reflection today at the general audience when he spoke of the last of the three primary tasks entrusted to priests. Noting that the Year for Priests is nearing its conclusion, and that he had already given catecheses on teaching and sanctifying, the Pontiff considered the theme of guiding.

He acknowledged that broaching the theme of authority in today’s world is complex. He reflected that dictatorships of the last century have made mankind suspicious of authority – a “suspicion that, not rarely, is expressed in upholding as necessary an abandonment of all authority that does not come exclusively from men and is subject to them.”

The Church’s authority, however, is that of service, exercised “not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ, who received from the Father all power in heaven and on earth,” Benedict XVI clarified. And Christ “willed that the Apostolic College, today the bishops in communion with the Successor of Peter, and priests, their most valuable collaborators, should participate in his mission to take care of the People of God, to be educators in the faith, guiding, animating and sustaining the Christian community.”

Pope Benedict never says or implies Priest to be involved in Politics especially here in the US were everyone enjoys such freedoms. He does not say to send all the worlds poor to the US to take advantage of their Welfare system, he never says take from one group and give to another group.

 

[CMatt25]

Yet you and others fault Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for doing that very same thing…let me guess, it only works if you are a modernists liberal following your conscience…right?

No everyone should follow their consciences. Now I know you or estesbob are ready to bring up why the differences in consciences? We can ask when we meet Him or He comes again. Whichever occurs first. Peace.

 

[estesbob]

No everyone should follow their consciences. Now I know you or estesbob are ready to bring up why the differences in consciences? We can ask when we meet Him or He comes again. Whichever occurs first. Peace.

So there is no need for a Church? Or do we just follow the Church until it interferes with our Political views and then follow our conscience?

 

[Brendan]

As I’ve repeatedly said, by every means inform your conscience. Study Church teachings. Inform your conscience of Church teachings. Study Scripture. Pray. Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Contemplate. Repeat all of these things. And pray some more. Do these things as long as it takes to discern. But in the end you’re not following your conscience if after all of that it still dissents and you only follow what another human being puts into your brain. That’s not following your conscience at all in that case. God bless and peace.

But what if someone arrives at the wrong conclusion. Your quote from Pope Benedict came from his work “Conscience and Truth”

He correctly notes that, absent the guidance of the Church, a conscience can be formed in any way

He uses the example of the Nazis

Objecting to this thesis, someone countered that if this were so then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven since they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience.

There is no doubting the fact that Hitler and his accomplices who were deeply convinced of their cause, could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, the objective terribleness of their deeds notwithstanding, they acted morally, subjectively speaking. Since they followed their albeit mistaken consciences, one would have to recognize their conduct as moral and, as a result, should not doubt their eternal salvation.

We can clearly see that many people can read Scripture and see only what they want to see, from anti-Semitism, chattle slavery, and a pro-choice mindset.

That is why, as then Cardinal Ratzinger noted, our consciences must always be formed in union with Churc teaching.

He notes that we even see in Scripture that we cannot always see the biases we posses that are contrary to what God really wants

In Psalm 19:12-13, we find the ever worth pondering passage: “But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from my unknown faults.”

And he also notes:

A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance,well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth.

That pretty much runs contrary to your premise of the issue of abortion in pluralistic society. It has no place with men of conscience.

 

[CMatt25]

So there is no need for a Church? Or do we just follow the Church until it interferes with our Political views and then follow our conscience?

:nope: Estesbob how can there be no need for a church if part of forming our consciences requires a church so we can become informed about what the church teaches? And no your faith and beliefs and conscience form your political views. Not the other way around.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Regarding CCC 883…careful, it does not say “without agreement of the Pope.” It says that Bishops must maintain communion with the Pope…a much broader and vaguer (some would say) criterion.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that “Bishops should only be involved in political issues that are proven to have grave moral consequences.”? Or is that just your opinion? I wasn’t clear, thanks for any clarification.

Diggerdomer - are you using the correct version of the Catechism? There were translation errors in the version that was printed in the 1990s in the US.

The correct version and that printed on the USCCB site is: “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II” and first printed in the US in March of 2000.

883 is very clear. It states that the college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor as its head. And it clearly states that the power of the Bishops can not be excercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. Footnotes at bottom of page state sources.

Regarding your second question:
“The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen. (2245)
It is the part of the Church’s mission to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances. (2246)”
This means the welfare of ALL men, including the Church’s teachings on “subsidiarity” 1883, 1885, 1894, 2209.

Everyone, please check the copyright page in your Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition". Near the bottom it should say “First Printing, March 2000”.
If you don’t have a correct copy, you can use the USCCB web site. However, it is more difficult to keep everything in context just using a web site since topics are related.