Democratically elected Bishops?

[Contarini]

I didn’t want to make too long a post that’s why I omitted the details of my position. Of course I am not against reasonable demands, nor am I against lay involvement per se. The problem I see is that Bishops and the Vatican are labelled “authoritarian” automatically for rejecting any demand here. Even if it’s a bad one, be it heretical or what not. It is always spun that way, the naughty reactionary Vatican/Bishop.

Again, I am not against certain demands simply for them being just that: demands for change. If they be reasonable, likely to work out and produce good, then yes, absolutely! Dissent is to be responded to with truth, charity and authority. That’s what I mean by “government for the people from above”. What cannot be done, however, is giving in to dissent and saying “Yeah, that’s cool. Let’s be all happy and throw away all the care for doctrine, morals… who needs that?”. “Decentralisation” cannot automatically be the answer to dissent, since that only empowers future dissent. It runs the risk of causing chaos. That’s why we need solid catechesis, so people understand what it is all about. Only then can we address requests and “decentralisation”. I find lots of the people who demand things as the KKI does, to also demand stuff that is contrary to the Catholic faith at the same time. I’m worried about the signal it would send. Check out Wir sind Kirche if you want to know what I mean.

One last time: My approach is to have clear structures, and the authority of the Church safeguarded in order that Ecclesiastical governance be carried out pastorally (a catch-word thrown about these days) with concern for the welfare of the faithful. A Bishop whose authority and role as shepherd is clearly established is not of himself incapable of doing a great job “pastorally”. That’s what it means: Pastor, shepherd. Authority, doctrine and care for the flock all belong together and can form a healthy whole.

My point is that if there are legitimate criticisms of the way Catholic polity has developed over time toward a more centralized, authoritarian approach, and if those criticisms are often made by people who are unorthodox (I think that both of these things are true), then the best way to defeat the unorthodoxy is to listen to the legitimate criticisms. In the end the revitalization of orthodoxy has to happen locally–with the clear support of the Magisterium, of course.

I know a little about German Catholicism, having lived in Bavaria for one month and in Niedersachsen for three. On the latter occasion I sometimes received communion in Catholic churches, having been invited to do so. I now think that I should not have done so, by the way. I mention this only to say that I know something about the tone of German Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[CutlerB]

My point is that if there are legitimate criticisms of the way Catholic polity has developed over time toward a more centralized, authoritarian approach, and if those criticisms are often made by people who are unorthodox (I think that both of these things are true), then the best way to defeat the unorthodoxy is to listen to the legitimate criticisms. In the end the revitalization of orthodoxy has to happen locally–with the clear support of the Magisterium, of course.

I know a little about German Catholicism, having lived in Bavaria for one month and in Niedersachsen for three. On the latter occasion I sometimes received communion in Catholic churches, having been invited to do so. I now think that I should not have done so, by the way. I mention this only to say that I know something about the tone of German Catholicism.

Edwin

I can agree to the first part. We will only differ on what “legitimate” is.

About the latter: Well, the tone of German Catholicism… what I hear from German lay Catholics sounds a lot like a social club. I don’t want to paint everyone with a broad brush, but that’s the image I get.