Layperson challenging bishop?

[Joe_5859]

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.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I am certainly an outsider to the whole situation. Most bishops I’ve met do have a sense of humor (which I think you almost have to have to put up with all that they have to put up with).

However, I am highly skeptical that the countdown clock can be dismissed as good-natured ribbing in light of the bloggers clear problems with the bishop. That they’re counting down the days implies that they cannot wait to be rid of him. While that may be how they really feel, I don’t think it’s conducive to charity to perpetually point that out. That’s not in keeping with the instructions of Canon 212 §3 for us to make known our opinions with reverence for our pastors.

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:

I’m not advocating that one should simply “roll over and take it.” I’m simply pointing out that there are better, more effective ways to go about making our concerns heard. As I mentioned before, I would recommend following the steps outlined in CUF’s Effective Lay Witness Protocol for handling controversies within the Church. Posting on a blog about it is like shouting into a void. It’s not going to change the situation.

 

[Ocarm]

I’m not advocating that one should simply “roll over and take it.” I’m simply pointing out that there are better, more effective ways to go about making our concerns heard. As I mentioned before, I would recommend following the steps outlined in CUF’s Effective Lay Witness Protocol for handling controversies within the Church. Posting on a blog about it is like shouting into a void. It’s not going to change the situation.

I think Joe has made some excellent points in this thread. Its important to remember that although the Church grants us rights, they are never separate from obligations. We have been given the right to make representations to the sacred pastors when there are matters of grave concern requiring action. However, we have the obligation to do so with respect and charity. When we fail to show charity, we forego the right to open speech.

If we approach a priest, a bishop or a dicastery of the Holy See in an improper manner, they are perfectly entitled to ignore us. If we have published such improprieties on the internet, any investigation into our concerns that uncovers such material will lead the authority involved to discount our concerns on the grounds that we are insufficiently serious-minded and upright in our public life to possess the credibility to be taken seriously ourselves. This is enshrined within the letter and spirit of the canon law which guides our actions.

 

[Friend_Of_Rome]

30 years of “proper” dissent has yielded nothing in Rochester. We’ve had schismatics rob entire parishes, women mount the pulpit and preach for their ordination, etc . . .

I’d also like to point out that the blogs I read which take a “tip-toe-through-the-tulips” approach have gotten, maybe, 10,000 hits over four years. That’s not a number to sneeze at. However, when you look at sites like Cleansing Fire, they’ve gotten 60,000 hits in 8 months.

I guess the people have spoken.

 

[wmscott]

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

I guess I am in the dark here. What is wrong with Vatican 2?

 

[JoeT777]

I guess I am in the dark here. What is wrong with Vatican 2?

Me too. And, how does it relate to being (or not being) orthodox?

JoeT

 

[andersonbd1]

the “spirit of vatican 2” refers to a mentality that vatican 2 meant more than it said. That V2 got the ball rolling and that it should keep rolling. That women should be priests. That homosexuality is totally fine, etc. This is a generalization and stereotype, but you get the idea. This is obviously in opposition to a “hermenutic of continuity” that sees V2 in the light of 2000 years of Tradition. So, there is nothing wrong with V2 - it’s the phrase “spirit of vatican 2” which is a code word for progressivism.

 

[wmscott]

the “spirit of vatican 2” refers to a mentality that vatican 2 meant more than it said. That V2 got the ball rolling and that it should keep rolling. That women should be priests. That homosexuality is totally fine, etc. This is a generalization and stereotype, but you get the idea. This is obviously in opposition to a “hermenutic of continuity” that sees V2 in the light of 2000 years of Tradition. So, there is nothing wrong with V2 - it’s the phrase “spirit of vatican 2” which is a code word for progressivism.

Ok, but I do not know of any language in V2 that suggests that women should be priests or that homosexuality is totally fine. Or have I missed something or are these things wishful thinking from a progressive point of view?

 

[JoeT777]

the “spirit of Vatican 2” refers to a mentality that Vatican 2 meant more than it said. That V2 got the ball rolling and that it should keep rolling. That women should be priests. That homosexuality is totally fine, etc. This is a generalization and stereotype, but you get the idea. This is obviously in opposition to a “hermeneutic of continuity” that sees V2 in the light of 2000 years of Tradition. So, there is nothing wrong with V2 - it’s the phrase “spirit of Vatican 2” which is a code word for progressivism.
wmscott;6284469:

Ok, but I do not know of any language in V2 that suggests that women should be priests or that homosexuality is totally fine. Or have I missed something or are these things wishful thinking from a progressive point of view?

Wmscott, Andersonbd1:

As much as I can tell there’s nothing to know. I’ve been through most of the documents from V2 at one time or another and haven’t seen anything remotely hinting at a ‘woman priesthood.’ Expanding the role of women maybe, but that’s not a bad thing. I don’t know of anything that would indicated that homosexuality is treated any differently on one side of V2 versus the other side. Nor is there anything that couldn’t be reduced by the same hermeneutics used prior to V2 – with the same meaning in the exegesis. It’s my recollection that what was changed was the Mass , allowing English among other changes, it’s my understanding that the form reverted back to an older version, one found in antiquity.

I do agree that there was a lot of ‘propaganda’ going around, both by special interests groups inside the Church and by ‘anti-Catholic’ (primarily Evangelical) groups who wanted the Church to fail or wanted a move to a more Protestant-like Church. I was very young at the time and was only interested in playing ‘cowboys and Indians.’ My recollections come from studies done much later in life. Also, some of the priests went ‘hippie’. I hated that because of the political overtones. The secular world was anti-Catholic too. The communist, socialists, Hollywood and most of the American press relentlessly attacked the Church – still do so there little difference here; even the Catholic press leans hard left against the Church at times. A few Dioceses and parishes tried to move toward Protestantism at least in the form of the Mass. These were usually individual Bishops or parish priests. That movement didn’t last too long, except for a few old-hippie holdouts. What I hear in the news today is a similar movement, with a more liberal bent especially on the left and right coasts; presumably, in an attempt to keep congregations – which of course is a mistake. As an example I recall the Gay Masses in San Francisco a few years ago where gross profanities against the Eucharist were allowed.

Talking the long view, all in all there’s nothing new; Christ’s Church is under attack by the world. I’ve faith in Christ’s promise to protect her from the gates of hell. The Church moves slow, so the antics resulting in the loss of morals in the 60’s and 70’s should right things.

JoeT

 

[Joe_5859]

Ok, but I do not know of any language in V2 that suggests that women should be priests or that homosexuality is totally fine. Or have I missed something or are these things wishful thinking from a progressive point of view?

The phrase “spirit of Vatican II” is tossed around a lot. I’ve heard it used in both “progressive” and “orthodox” circles (in a favorable sense by the former group and in a perjorative sense by the latter group). It basically refers to the tendency of some to read into the documents of Vatican II things that the documents never intended to say.

“Wishful thinking” is a mild way of putting it.

 

[wmscott]

Thanks Joe and Joe, as a convert all I have known is the Catholic Church as it is today - V2. I appreciate the history lesson on this and I am glad that it did not go the way of the progressives.