Lincoln Diocese (in Nebraska) attracts conservative Catholics

[bellesjoy]

I agree that it is not a governing body. Yet the body does exert much control and authority even if it is not a governing body. For example: even in small things like eating meat on Friday the USCCB managed to get an exception for United States Catholics, despite the fact that the Universal Church law retains the law of not eating meat of Firdays. In the case of Friday penance, in the United States if one does not do penance, they do not suffer sin and the Bishop of Lincoln cannot change that ruling made by the Vatican after the collective body of U.S. Bishops asked for it. So, the USCCB cannot make these rulings, yet they can heavily petition the Vatican and in that case they got the exception (an exception I do not like btw). So, is it wise to take a position of ignoring the USCCB when that body of Bishops exert much control and sometimes changed by the use of their collective voice?

It is not only wise, it is imperative to not follow the USCCB when as a Bishop one disagrees with them. Each Bishop is responsible for the souls of all those entrusted to him within his diocese. No one else can trump his authority in his diocese (except for the Holy Father). For that reason alone each Bishop should carefully weigh what is actually from a comittee of the USCCB and that which comes from Rome.

Bishop Vasa, who is our bishop here in the Baker Diocese, likewise obeys Rome, and considers what is said and done by the USCCB on a case by case bases…sadly the USCCB frequently does not measure up.

 

[Tom317]

It is not only wise, it is imperative to not follow the USCCB when as a Bishop one disagrees with them. Each Bishop is responsible for the souls of all those entrusted to him within his diocese. No one else can trump his authority in his diocese (except for the Holy Father). For that reason alone each Bishop should carefully weigh what is actually from a comittee of the USCCB and that which comes from Rome.

Bishop Vasa, who is our bishop here in the Baker Diocese, likewise obeys Rome, and considers what is said and done by the USCCB on a case by case bases…sadly the USCCB frequently does not measure up.

Yet, that attitude can leave a Bishop waiting at the station as with my example of Friday penance.

 

[Tom317]

It is not only wise, it is imperative to not follow the USCCB when as a Bishop one disagrees with them. Each Bishop is responsible for the souls of all those entrusted to him within his diocese. No one else can trump his authority in his diocese (except for the Holy Father). For that reason alone each Bishop should carefully weigh what is actually from a comittee of the USCCB and that which comes from Rome.

Bishop Vasa, who is our bishop here in the Baker Diocese, likewise obeys Rome, and considers what is said and done by the USCCB on a case by case bases…sadly the USCCB frequently does not measure up.

If certain Bishops take that position against the USCCB, then why wouldn’t they petition the Vatican to have the USCCB disbanded, or at least condemned?

 

[bellesjoy]

Yet, that attitude can leave a Bishop waiting at the station as with my example of Friday penance.

I don’t think you get the picture. Our Bishop participates in the USCCB, as does Bishop Bruskewitz. They work there for change and to contribute in many ways and very actively. However, they reserve the right to make decision for those in thier diocese on a case by case basis. That in no way leaves them or their diocese “waiting at any station” when the Holy Father speaks to or takes action on any given subject. In what manner would you imagine that to happen? Any Bishop can accept or reject what is done by the USCCB. He cannot reject anything that comes from Rome.

 

[Julianna]

So you belives that being an EMCH makes one superior to another?

If there are only men, yes. Women “do know how” to hold a plate, serve a plate, feed someone, hold a glass and clean up afterwords…we have been doing it for how long??? It’s not rocket science.

 

[estesbob]

If certain Bishops take that position against the USCCB, then why wouldn’t they petition the Vatican to have the USCCB disbanded, or at least condemned?

Why should they? The USCCB is an advisory organization-they can take its proposals or leave them. Just because my Pastor, for instance, does not always follow the recommendations of the parish Council does not mean it should be disbanded or condemned.

 

[bellesjoy]

If certain Bishops take that position against the USCCB, then why wouldn’t they petition the Vatican to have the USCCB disbanded, or at least condemned?

Its not the general concept of the USCCB that is in question. It can and sometimes does play an important role in addressing issues in this country. But it is some of the decisions or positions that come from that group that are questioned by many bishops. If you look at the voting at these conference you will see they don’t all vote in unison. Each bishop takes responsiblity alone for his diocese and is answerable to the Pope, not the USCCB.

They do not seek to get rid of it. They work within it for change, but reserve the right to disagree with the findings/reports or positions they sometime make and continue to take full responsiblity for saving the souls under their care to the best of their ability, even if that is counter to what is being said by the USCCB.

Perhaps you are not aware that there is much imput into the USCCB by some laity on committee work that is not reflective of what Rome says about some issue. Unfortunately, many bishops will simply rubber stamp what is found by committees without looking further into an issue. (Human nature of which we are all susceptible…less work)

An example is the requirement made a few years back that all children in Catholic schools have to recieve “safe environment” training. Many of those programs have been found to be damaging to children in and of themselves (Catholic Medical Association, 2006) and the requirement itself goes against the Catholic (Rome’s) teaching that parents are solely responsible for the religious/moral upbringinf of their children. While the USCCB might have had very good intentions in making that ruling, thank heavens our Bishop said no way in our diocese.

There are many Bishops in the USCCB that continue to attend and participate, but are hoping for a more orthodox organization and more adherence to Rome. There is nothing wrong with that. That will only make it a better organization, but never one with authority over any individual bishop.

 

[bellesjoy]

If there are only men, yes. Women “do know how” to hold a plate, serve a plate, feed someone, hold a glass and clean up afterwords…we have been doing it for how long??? It’s not rocket science.

Acting as an EMHC is not something that makes one more superior or inferior. It is a service one is called to provide for others only if there is a need for the service. It is not about the individual. The attitude that “it’s about me” and what I want for me is an antipathy to this kind of ministry. As taught in the Soul of the Apostolate, I must become less so that He may become more. Try to take the male/female ego out of your thinking and understand that this is not about how to “hold a plate”. That kind of remark deminishes the Eucharist, which none of us are worthy to handle.

 

[Tom317]

Its not the general concept of the USCCB that is in question. It can and sometimes does play an important role in addressing issues in this country. But it is some of the decisions or positions that come from that group that are questioned by many bishops. If you look at the voting at these conference you will see they don’t all vote in unison. Each bishop takes responsiblity alone for his diocese and is answerable to the Pope, not the USCCB.

They do not seek to get rid of it. They work within it for change, but reserve the right to disagree with the findings/reports or positions they sometime make and continue to take full responsiblity for saving the souls under their care to the best of their ability, even if that is counter to what is being said by the USCCB.

Perhaps you are not aware that there is much imput into the USCCB by some laity on committee work that is not reflective of what Rome says about some issue. Unfortunately, many bishops will simply rubber stamp what is found by committees without looking further into an issue. (Human nature of which we are all susceptible…less work)

An example is the requirement made a few years back that all children in Catholic schools have to recieve “safe environment” training. Many of those programs have been found to be damaging to children in and of themselves (Catholic Medical Association, 2006) and the requirement itself goes against the Catholic (Rome’s) teaching that parents are solely responsible for the religious/moral upbringinf of their children. While the USCCB might have had very good intentions in making that ruling, thank heavens our Bishop said no way in our diocese.

There are many Bishops in the USCCB that continue to attend and participate, but are hoping for a more orthodox organization and more adherence to Rome. There is nothing wrong with that. That will only make it a better organization, but never one with authority over any individual bishop.

Okay, I got what you are saying. Yet, if the conference harms the Body of Christ in any way, why have it? That is really bottom line.

 

[Tom317]

Why should they? The USCCB is an advisory organization-they can take its proposals or leave them. Just because my Pastor, for instance, does not always follow the recommendations of the parish Council does not mean it should be disbanded or condemned.

First, if it causes harm then it should not exist in the Church.

Second, it is no small expense to run the conference, money that could put to use serving God’s children.

I am not taking a stance either way, I am just saying that if the conference can be proved to be harmful in any way, then why keep it?

 

[Tom317]

I don’t think you get the picture. Our Bishop participates in the USCCB, as does Bishop Bruskewitz. They work there for change and to contribute in many ways and very actively. However, they reserve the right to make decision for those in thier diocese on a case by case basis. That in no way leaves them or their diocese “waiting at any station” when the Holy Father speaks to or takes action on any given subject. In what manner would you imagine that to happen? Any Bishop can accept or reject what is done by the USCCB. He cannot reject anything that comes from Rome.

In decisions like the penance ruling, if a Bishops stands outside the conference then he is waiting at the station. In other words, if any Bishops chooses to not take the conference seriously, then it weakens the effectiveness of that conference and what is the point of that? Also, since canon law does not mandate the conferences and since tradition and scripture do not either, isn’t just a wasteful activity that orthodox Bishops “should” ignore?

 

[bellesjoy]

In decisions like the penance ruling, if a Bishops stands outside the conference then he is waiting at the station. In other words, if any Bishops chooses to not take the conference seriously, then it weakens the effectiveness of that conference and what is the point of that? Also, since canon law does not mandate the conferences and since tradition and scripture do not either, isn’t just a wasteful activity that orthodox Bishops “should” ignore?

The penance position taken by the USCCB was in direct opposition to Rome in that it usurpt parental responsiblity. No Bishop is in any precarious position if he follows Rome. Taking the conferences “seriously” means doing what you can to bring it back to Rome. There are times when a position taken by the conference should be weakened as in the example. People needed to know that Rome was not changing it’s position on parental authority, but that the USCCB had taken a position that was not in line with Rome.

Nothing weakens anything more about the USCCB than when it strays from Rome. Even if a bishop finds himself at odds with the results of any given conference topic it is not a waste to do what one can to bring it closer to Rome. I can’t see that as ever being a bad thing.

And even when a bishop does not agree with some of what is done (and perhaps agree with many other things) that doesn’t mean that he must disengage from the collegiality of the conference…all is an opportunity to make change for the better. Why would anyone pass up such an opportunity? If you were exposed to how the bishops lobby one another and evangelize on given topics you might be surprised. It is quite a process and very political.

 

[bellesjoy]

Okay, I got what you are saying. Yet, if the conference harms the Body of Christ in any way, why have it? That is really bottom line.

Sometimes I ask the same question, but I am optomistic that it will become more reflective of Rome. The role of the USCCB is in many regards inspiring and could be more inspiring and we will pray for that.

They did just vote to reduce the number of committees and cut the cost of holding the conference in a number of ways. If any group of people recognize the financial issues of the times these men do.

 

[Tom317]

The penance position taken by the USCCB was in direct opposition to Rome in that it usurpt parental responsiblity. No Bishop is in any precarious position if he follows Rome. Taking the conferences “seriously” means doing what you can to bring it back to Rome. There are times when a position taken by the conference should be weakened as in the example. People needed to know that Rome was not changing it’s position on parental authority, but that the USCCB had taken a position that was not in line with Rome.

Nothing weakens anything more about the USCCB than when it strays from Rome. Even if a bishop finds himself at odds with the results of any given conference topic it is not a waste to do what one can to bring it closer to Rome. I can’t see that as ever being a bad thing.

And even when a bishop does not agree with some of what is done (and perhaps agree with many other things) that doesn’t mean that he must disengage from the collegiality of the conference…all is an opportunity to make change for the better. Why would anyone pass up such an opportunity? If you were exposed to how the bishops lobby one another and evangelize on given topics you might be surprised. It is quite a process and very political.

I am not sure how you are equating the penance decision to parental authority–please explain.

The penance change is an example of the USCCB have very real authority and and very real impact on Catholics in the United States. The Vatican gave the Bishops in the U.S> approval to change the Friday penance even though the Universal Church did not change…I would say that is a huge amount authority.

 

[Brendan]

If there are only men, yes. Women “do know how” to hold a plate, serve a plate, feed someone, hold a glass and clean up afterwords…we have been doing it for how long??? It’s not rocket science.

Ahh, so you belive that being an EMHC makes one a superior person to another, is that correct?

 

[Ruthmary]

I am not sure how you are equating the penance decision to parental authority–please explain.

The penance change is an example of the USCCB have very real authority and and very real impact on Catholics in the United States. The Vatican gave the Bishops in the U.S> approval to change the Friday penance even though the Universal Church did not change…I would say that is a huge amount authority.

From my point of view, I don’t think they should have that authority. It’s confusing. When the change on Friday penance came, maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention, but I thought it was a church wide change from Rome, and one of the changes brought about by Vatican II. When I found out the truth, I went right back to my former practice. The one good thing I have found is that now I do think more about why I’m giving up meat on Friday, but now it’s more difficult.

Is it possible that by way of this conference, the bishops accord themselves more authority than is proper? If so, then it should be abandoned. It must be difficult for the bishops, what with all the different ways of approaching church doctrine. . . . . I guess there are plenty of arguments both ways. It’s not easy being Catholic!!!

 

[corvidae]

I am not sure how you are equating the penance decision to parental authority–please explain.

The penance change is an example of the USCCB have very real authority and and very real impact on Catholics in the United States. The Vatican gave the Bishops in the U.S> approval to change the Friday penance even though the Universal Church did not change…I would say that is a huge amount authority.

I think the thing to remember here is that the USCCB did not change anything., The USCCB petitioned Rome, and Rome allowed it to be changed.

A lone Raven

 

[Tom317]

From my point of view, I don’t think they should have that authority. It’s confusing. When the change on Friday penance came, maybe I wasn’t paying close enough attention, but I thought it was a church wide change from Rome, and one of the changes brought about by Vatican II. When I found out the truth, I went right back to my former practice. The one good thing I have found is that now I do think more about why I’m giving up meat on Friday, but now it’s more difficult.

Is it possible that by way of this conference, the bishops accord themselves more authority than is proper? If so, then it should be abandoned. It must be difficult for the bishops, what with all the different ways of approaching church doctrine. . . . . I guess there are plenty of arguments both ways. It’s not easy being Catholic!!!

It seems that there is plenty of room for abuse.

 

[Tom317]

I think the thing to remember here is that the USCCB did not change anything., The USCCB petitioned Rome, and Rome allowed it to be changed.

A lone Raven

Yes, I agree. Yet, if the U.S. had not spoken as one voice, then the change probably would not have been allowed and Rome did give the conference authority to make the chages, so in a very real way Rome gave its authority away.

 

[mattkubes]

I’ve been following this thread, but as far as I know, no one has posted the actual text of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Hopefully this will help clear some things up:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. [Emphasis mine]
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

Are there alternate interpretations of this paragraph that are floating around? Seems quite clear to me…looks like that old story about the Pope asking God when there would be women priests isn’t so far off afterall…