Layperson challenging bishop?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andersonbd1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

andersonbd1

Guest
If a layperson lives in a diocese in which orthodoxy is squashed and the “spirit of vatican 2” prevails - what are the guidelines for challenging the bishop (if any) ?

Should we just remain silent and do our own thing? Or do we have a duty to vocally defend orthodoxy? I’d rather not rest on my own opinion or on the opinions of others, but on the opinions of the Church. Anyone have any good references?

more here:
fallaciesandfashions.com/2010/02/fr-rick-on-lay-administration.html
 
If you have documented problems in your parish, you should first attempt to rectify them at the parish level. Meet with the priest, explain your concerns, and ask him to make changes-- be that in the liturgy, in catechesis, in statements he makes, etc.

If no change is forthcoming, the next step is to write a succinct letter to the bishop listing out the issues and asking him to correct them.

If no change is forthcoming, the next step one may take is to write to the appropriate Vatican congregation and seek their counsel or ask them to take up the issue. For example, if the issue is liturgy or sacraments, write to the Congregation for Divine Worship. If it’s doctrinal, write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If it’s some othe problem with the priest, write to the Congregation for the Clergy.

After that, you must pray for your priest and bishop and get along as best as you can if nothing changes.
 
#1 and #2 in your steps have been done. #3 is in process.

I’m guess I’m wondering whether encouraging others to also do #3 (through the use of a blog) is morally acceptable or problematic. Any thoughts on that specifically?
 
Catholics United for the Faith have laid out the steps to take when problems arise:

Lay Witness Protocol

As 1ke suggested, this also follows the principle of subsidiarity (trying to resolve things on the lowest level possible).

I would urge extreme caution. I would also urge you to make every effort to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure what your particular issue is, but I’ve seen some people want to take their bishop to the mat for a decision that, per Canon Law, is the bishop’s decision to make. Causing a ruckus over such things doesn’t do anyone any good. All it does is further erode any respect the general populace has for our shepherds.

Personally, I would never call a bishop out on a blog. Blogs are public domain. I cannot think of a good reason to draw attention to the foibles (perceived or actual) of a bishop in such a way. Do you ever see people on EWTN singling out dubious practices of particular bishops and questioning their orthodoxy? No. And there’s a good reason for that.

Now, might you privately contact other parishioners who have witnessed the same things to help you address the issue? Sure. It might highlight the importance of the issue to have half a dozen people sign a letter (or write six separate letters) on the matter. But I can’t see the upside to airing these things in such a public way. If anything, it only hurts your chances at being taken seriously. To blog about your concerns, outside of going through the proper channels, comes across as ranting. They will dismiss you as someone with an ax to grind.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Personally, I would never call a bishop out on a blog. Blogs are public domain. I cannot think of a good reason to draw attention to the foibles (perceived or actual) of a bishop in such a way. Do you ever see people on EWTN singling out dubious practices of particular bishops and questioning their orthodoxy? No. And there’s a good reason for that.
Click to expand...
I can’t help but think of Mother Angelica and the incident that involved that Cardinal in Los Angeles whose name I do not utter for I do not like him.
 
andersonbd1 said:
If a layperson lives in a diocese in which orthodoxy is squashed and the “spirit of vatican 2” prevails - what are the guidelines for challenging the bishop (if any) ?

Should we just remain silent and do our own thing? Or do we have a duty to vocally defend orthodoxy? I’d rather not rest on my own opinion or on the opinions of others, but on the opinions of the Church. Anyone have any good references?

more here:
fallaciesandfashions.com/2010/02/fr-rick-on-lay-administration.html
Click to expand...
Just be patient, B16 is more likely to allow for more and more pre-V2 practices. He appears to be as uncomfortable with V2 as you seem to be given the tiny peek we have been given by your post.

Peace
 
cfrancis said:
I can’t help but think of Mother Angelica and the incident that involved that Cardinal in Los Angeles whose name I do not utter for I do not like him.
Click to expand...
I guess I missed that. Do you have a link to a story about it?
 
andersonbd1 said:
If a layperson lives in a diocese in which orthodoxy is squashed and the “spirit of vatican 2” prevails - what are the guidelines for challenging the bishop (if any) ?

Should we just remain silent and do our own thing? Or do we have a duty to vocally defend orthodoxy? I’d rather not rest on my own opinion or on the opinions of others, but on the opinions of the Church. Anyone have any good references?
Click to expand...
Canon 212 of the 1983 Code is useful here:

*Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.*

This is an important canon, because it establishes the right to enter into dialogue with the hierarchy. However, as other respondents have pointed out, this requires caution because many of the complaints made about pastors are offered in ignorance of the actual latitude and decision-making powers possessed by bishops and their priests. Hence the appeal to knowledge, competence, and prestige being considered before a dialogue develops.

Because canons never exist in isolation, its worth reading all of canons 208-223 on the rights and obligations of the faithful generally:

vatican.va
/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM

and the rights and obligations of lay people specifically in canons 224-231:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PV.HTM

I’d agree with the points made regarding the public nature of any such dialogue. All people deserve charity, and canon law reminds us of this on several occasions, especially with regard to our bishops. It may be empowering to envisage ourselves as Jesus cleansing the temple and so make use of equally loud and strident methods, but if we’re going to adopt such techniques we need to be very sure of the ground on which we walk. I think its helpful to imagine the difficulties of our bishops in balancing many needs and wants, sometimes mutually exclusive of each other, and recognise that they need our prayers to support them in their teaching and pastoral roles.
 
re: Mother Angelica
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Word_Television_Network#Confrontations.2C_controversy_and_criticism

“I’m afraid my obedience in that diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else’s in that diocese is zero”.

Regarding the public nature of blogs - we’ve found it to be our best way to connect with other disgruntled Catholics in this diocese. Yes, it is airing our dirty laundry in public and is quite lamentable, but it seems to be connecting people in a way like no other. If, by chance, more good can come out of it wouldn’t that justify it? Certainly, if the issues were minor, then we’d be guilty of dissent. But I’m not sure these are minor issues. The main issue is in regards to lay people running our parishes and subjecting priests to be “sacramental ministers” (second or third in command). There are other issues, but this is the hot one right now because of the bishops new book Forward in Hope

Here’s another blog that illuminates some of the issues in that book:
cleansingfiredor.blogspot.com/2010/02/bishop-clark-on-lay-preaching.html

“It may be empowering to envisage ourselves as Jesus cleansing the temple”
Believe me - I wish things weren’t the way they are. I am hurt that it’s come to this, but I also don’t want to run away when God calls us to stand firm for something. If the right thing to do is to be quiet, then believe me that’s what I want to do. But if the right thing to do is to speak up, then that’s what we have to do - no matter how painful.
 
I just took a look at your blog, and, with all due respect, I think you’re treading through some dangerous waters.

As a general rule of thumb, asking for someone’s resignation (particularly a bishop’s!) is not an effective way to work for change. I’m sure this was not your intent, but it comes across as a scare tactic. When we are making an appeal to someone in an authority position, we cannot force their hand. We can inform them of any concerns or abuses, but we cannot presume to tell them how to handle it. They know how to handle it. Better than any of us do. Asking for an imposed resignation is the quickest way to get your complaint filed in the wastepaper basket.

Look at what Pope Benedict XVI asked of his readers in the intro to his book Jesus of Nazareth:

“I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.”

This is how the Holy See operates. We presume goodwill until proven otherwise. And to prove ill will on the part of a bishop is not something that can be easily done (and is not a task I would care to take on).

I sympathize with your frustrations. It’s not an easy thing to endure when it seems one’s whole diocese takes a wishy-washy approach to the faith. But we must be careful of our critiques. There is a bit of leeway in terms of certain theological concepts, even when they seem to us to be obviously problematic (or lead to problematic conclusions). I really don’t like the term “Lay Ecclesial Minister” either, but it was the topic of the 2005 USCCB document “Co-Workers in the Vineyard of the Lord” and, as of the present, it’s usage has not been condemned. Thus, bringing it up as “evidence” does nothing to support your case. You might pose a dubium to the CDF about the appropriateness of the term (which I would definitely like to see someone do), but it is not evidence of heterodoxy.
 
Joe 5859 - thanks for your feedback

I took down one of the posts in question - “Dear Rome”. If I bring it back up, I will change the wording so it’s more informative than presumptuous.
 
andersonbd1 said:
Regarding the public nature of blogs - we’ve found it to be our best way to connect with other disgruntled Catholics in this diocese. Yes, it is airing our dirty laundry in public and is quite lamentable, but it seems to be connecting people in a way like no other. If, by chance, more good can come out of it wouldn’t that justify it?
Click to expand...
I still don’t think a blog is the best venue for that. Better to create a Google group or something where to content is available only to members.

Remember that Catholic morality is not an “ends justifies the means” kind of morality. 😉 Look at CCC 2477. It says, in part, that one is " guilty…of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them." I’m not trying to say that you don’t have an objectively valid reason, I’m just advising that you need to think and pray long and hard to make sure that you do have a valid reason before you take such things public.

In any case, the “Cleansing Fire” blog (which I realize is not your blog) actually has a “Countdown to Retirement” clock for your bishop. That is not respectful nor charitable. Even if all the criticisms are accurate and even if there is an objectively valid justification in making them, there is never a need for such antics.

Also, just my opinion (;)), but I don’t think your visual illustration positing the Vatican and USCCB on one end with the “Truth” and your “heterodox” diocese on the other end with “Fallacies and Fashion” is the best way to make your point. Such visual illustrations circumvent critical thinking and paint the issue in a caricatured way. That doesn’t help anyone to come to a genuine understanding of the issues at hand.
 
andersonbd1 said:
If a layperson lives in a diocese in which orthodoxy is squashed and the “spirit of vatican 2” prevails - what are the guidelines for challenging the bishop (if any) ?

Should we just remain silent and do our own thing? Or do we have a duty to vocally defend orthodoxy? I’d rather not rest on my own opinion or on the opinions of others, but on the opinions of the Church. Anyone have any good references?

more here:
fallaciesandfashions.com/2010/02/fr-rick-on-lay-administration.html
Click to expand...
Code of Canon Law…make sure you read every word:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
 
Code of Canon Law…make sure you read every word:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals,** with reverence toward their pastors**, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
 
Joe_5859 said:
In any case, the “Cleansing Fire” blog (which I realize is not your blog) actually has a “Countdown to Retirement” clock for your bishop. That is not respectful nor charitable. Even if all the criticisms are accurate and even if there is an objectively valid justification in making them, there is never a need for such antics.
Click to expand...
I must disagree, cum caritas, as it were. If you have read over the majority of the posts at Cleansing Fire (I’m laid up, so I have the time) you’ll see that the vast majority of things relating to Bishop Clark are either respectful disagreements, citing canon law, documents of V2, etc . . . or they’re amusing, light-hearted jokes. Nothing there is disrespectful of His Excellency, unless he lacks a sense of humor. I’ve met the man on a few occasions, and he definitely has a sense of humor.

Also, regarding their countdown - it’s not a matter for debate. It’s a reality. In however many days they have up, Bishop Clark will have to submit his retirement papers. For good or for ill, it is a reality. If you’re affixing any kind of sentiment of disrespect, it doesn’t really have a firm foundation. If they were to call him “stupid,” “moronic,” “idiot,” or worse, *that *would be disrespect, and worthy of reprimand, but as it is, it’s either scholarly critique or light-hearted humor.

Not one pope has ever instructed the laity simply to “roll over and take it.” They all say things to the effect of “make your voice heard.” These people are doing just that. :knight2:
 
If you can’t bring the bishop to correct his heresies or whatever on his own, it is best to report him to the Vatican.
 
take 2
fallaciesandfashions.com/2010/02/dear-rome-take-2.html

As to the cleansing fire “antics” I remain an agnostic. There are certain things (like the countdown) that I wouldn’t publish myself, but I’m not gonna tell them what they’re doing is wrong. I do think just from a practical perspective they’d be taken more seriously if they did away those things. As to the countdown not implying anything other than a reality, I’d have to say that’s bogus. Everyone knows what is meant by the countdown.
 
andersonbd1 said:
If a layperson lives in a diocese in which orthodoxy is squashed and the “spirit of vatican 2” prevails - what are the guidelines for challenging the bishop (if any) ?

Should we just remain silent and do our own thing? Or do we have a duty to vocally defend orthodoxy? I’d rather not rest on my own opinion or on the opinions of others, but on the opinions of the Church. Anyone have any good references?

more here:
fallaciesandfashions.com/2010/02/fr-rick-on-lay-administration.html
Click to expand...
maybe you should send him this.

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307fea1.asp

**
A writer has summed up in one line the principle the guides us: “The failure to live as one thinks leads to thinking according as one lives. The failure to pray in accord with one’s beliefs leads to believing according as one prays.” **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top