M
Michael_Neal
Guest
just wondering
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
stbruno
Guest
Not unless you are creating a public scandal or speaking against the canons or dogmas of the church. If you are criticizing his church politics…that’s not unusual. Whatever you do should not be done with malice or evil intent. Takes lots of prayer and humility too. So keep praying
L
Lance
Guest
That would depend entirely on what you were criticizing him for. If you criticized him for not acting to remove a priest who was a known child molester that would be OK. If you criticized him for not allowing gay marriage, that would be another story. This is just my opinion.
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
Couldn’t creating a public scandal be wide open to interpretation or easily abused? I mean if I criticize a bishop publically he could claim I was creating a public scandal.
I am not talking about criticizing the teachings of the church in any way. I am talking about criticizing a bishop for removing priests that are whiste blowers in the the Church abuse scandals and for targeting orthodox priests within the diocese.
I am not talking about criticizing the teachings of the church in any way. I am talking about criticizing a bishop for removing priests that are whiste blowers in the the Church abuse scandals and for targeting orthodox priests within the diocese.
L
Lance
Guest
I think you would be on solid ground there. He has to follow the rules just as you do. There are rules he must follow before excommunicating anyone. Our bishop has been severely criticized about his handling of a child abuser priest(former) and no one has been excommunicated though several have left the church over it.
1
1ke
Guest
Canon Law defines excommunicable offenses. Criticism of one’s bishop-- in and of itself-- is not one of them.
Excommunication is not the only penatly under Canon Law, however.
Therefore, such behavior-- depending on the specifics– could incur other ecclesial penalties such as censure or interdict as enumerated in Canon Law. And, excommunication could occur if a person persisted in behavior that had already landed him under censure or interdict.
Excommunication is not the only penatly under Canon Law, however.
Therefore, such behavior-- depending on the specifics– could incur other ecclesial penalties such as censure or interdict as enumerated in Canon Law. And, excommunication could occur if a person persisted in behavior that had already landed him under censure or interdict.
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
I suppose if a bishop tried to censure or excommunicate a lay person for criticism it would look very bad in the public eye as well as with higher Church authorities.
I also suppose even if he did try such a measure it would clearly be invalid or unjust according to the following:
Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.
newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
I also suppose even if he did try such a measure it would clearly be invalid or unjust according to the following:
Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form. Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.
newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
E
EddieArent
Guest
The context certainly is needed. If one says, disagrees with for instance the recent excommunications from Archbishop Burke in regard to women priests, etc. then that is trouble. If one is complaining about liturgical abuse, heresy, etc. and the bishop either tolerates these items or even professes them, then one should have an obligation to speak up. On the other hand, if you’re saying the bishop keeps his dog each day and that isn’t true, then that is quite sinful. Nevertheless, we should pray for the clergy, good or bad.
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
In my case it is criticizing a bishop for removing whistle blowing priests as well as removing priests who complain about liturgical abuses.
I do feel I have the right or even the obligation as a good Catholic to shout from the rooftops about this kind of injustice.
I do feel I have the right or even the obligation as a good Catholic to shout from the rooftops about this kind of injustice.
1
1ke
Guest
That is your opinion, which I do not share.I suppose if a bishop tried to censure or excommunicate a lay person for criticism it would look very bad in the public eye as well as with higher Church authorities.
*Clearly? * I think not. One cannot *presume *that such an action is invalid just because one thinks it’s “unjust”. I’m sure most people who get excommunicated think they are in the right. There is a process of appeal.I also suppose even if he did try such a measure it would clearly be invalid or unjust according to the following:
1
1ke
Guest
Priests are under the authority of the bishop and vow obedience to him.In my case it is criticizing a bishop for removing whistle blowing priests as well as removing priests who complain about liturgical abuses.
Or, you could take the route of humility.I do feel I have the right or even the obligation as a good Catholic to shout from the rooftops about this kind of injustice.
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
Yes there is an appeal, but I would absolutely consider such an excommunication or censure unjust due to the very fact that the bishop was acting contrary to the principles and beliefs of the Catholic Church.
Regardless of any result of the appeal I would not obey it because between my conscience and God I was acting in the right. See the article I posted above, at that point it would be between God and I if I was sinful for disobeying the order of the Bishop.
I have not taken any position contrary to the Church or its teachings, I only criticized a bishop who was himself going against those principles.
it would clearly be unjust
Regardless of any result of the appeal I would not obey it because between my conscience and God I was acting in the right. See the article I posted above, at that point it would be between God and I if I was sinful for disobeying the order of the Bishop.
I have not taken any position contrary to the Church or its teachings, I only criticized a bishop who was himself going against those principles.
it would clearly be unjust
M
Michael_Neal
Guest
I am not sure that obedience includes violating the principles of the church or turning a blind eye to abuses regardless of what the Bishop says. God is a higher authority.Priests are under the authority of the bishop and vow obedience to him.
Or, you could take the route of humility.
There is a time and place for humility and also a time and place for righteous anger and correcting wrongs.
L
Lance
Guest
Only as far a cannon law goes. If a bishop is covering up sex/child abuse a priest has the right, no the duty to report it. If the bishop was taking the money donated to the dicese and spending it on wine, women and song the priest should report it. If a bishop does such things we are required to report them. Knowingly covering up a crime is a crime.Priests are under the authority of the bishop and vow obedience to him.
L
Lance
Guest
It is not charitable (substitute humble) to allow someone to continue in sin. Even a bishop of the Catholic Church.Or, you could take the route of humility.
D
dandn5000
Guest
If you could, then I’d imagine that quite a lot of people on these boards would be in trouble…
I can’t imagine that criticizing his policies would get you into any real troubles in the Church, but criticizing his moral/theological teachings if they are dogmatic will. But it doesn’t really work to criticize the bishop for the dogmatic teachings of the Church because he has no say in the matter.
I can’t imagine that criticizing his policies would get you into any real troubles in the Church, but criticizing his moral/theological teachings if they are dogmatic will. But it doesn’t really work to criticize the bishop for the dogmatic teachings of the Church because he has no say in the matter.
1
1ke
Guest
You misunderstand me. Of course a priest must come forward with knowledge of a crime (if knowledge was procured outside the confessional).Only as far a cannon law goes. If a bishop is covering up sex/child abuse a priest has the right, no the duty to report it. If the bishop was taking the money donated to the dicese and spending it on wine, women and song the priest should report it. If a bishop does such things we are required to report them. Knowingly covering up a crime is a crime.
I am referring only to the action of the bishops in relocated or “removing” those who “spoke out” about liturgical abuse-- and even the “whistle blowers”. He still has authority over them, and can move them or reassign them as he chooses.
1
1ke
Guest
Now listen to what you are saying-- if this hypothetical censure was upheld by Rome you would “not obey”.Regardless of any result of the appeal I would not obey it because between my conscience and God I was acting in the right.
So now you know better than the entire church…
B
brockmac
Guest
One should generally be very careful about public criticism of one’s bishop. It is my opinion that we should address any concerns we have directly with our shepherd, and failing that with the metropolitan arch-bishop or the papal nuncio.
I say this for two reasons. One is any public outcry could scandalize our brothers and sisters and cause some to leave the fold.
The other is that I have seldom seen a bishop, or even a pastor of a parish, change direction because of a noisy contingent among his flock.
They understand well (sometimes too well) that the Church is not a democratic orginazation, but rather is ruled from the top (Christ) down, through his Pope, bishops, and priests.
I say this for two reasons. One is any public outcry could scandalize our brothers and sisters and cause some to leave the fold.
The other is that I have seldom seen a bishop, or even a pastor of a parish, change direction because of a noisy contingent among his flock.
They understand well (sometimes too well) that the Church is not a democratic orginazation, but rather is ruled from the top (Christ) down, through his Pope, bishops, and priests.
B
bkovacs
Guest
If you have a problem with the Bishop. “Right a letter to Rome!”. Don’t take the affair into your own hands.Couldn’t creating a public scandal be wide open to interpretation or easily abused? I mean if I criticize a bishop publically he could claim I was creating a public scandal.
I am not talking about criticizing the teachings of the church in any way. I am talking about criticizing a bishop for removing priests that are whiste blowers in the the Church abuse scandals and for targeting orthodox priests within the diocese.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.