C
comrade1789
Guest
This is how the laity should respond, IMO. Let us hope the Holy See responds in a timely manner.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114765
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=114765
Mexican Prelate Files Lawsuit In Response To Calls For A Real 'Catholic Bishop'
- Status
M
manualman
Guest
It is most disheartening to live in the jurisdiction of a bishop who seems to disregard significant portions of the catholic faith. I know, because I’ve been there (I won’t say who and you can’t tell from my profile).
But I’m not sure we will be solving the problem by introducing the idea of lay revolt when the laity are convinced that the bishop is doing a lousy job. Where does THAT end? I’m not entirely sure where the line is, but I will say that’d I’d never have gone that far, even when I lived in a place/time where I felt the same way as those lay folks seem to.
But I’m not sure we will be solving the problem by introducing the idea of lay revolt when the laity are convinced that the bishop is doing a lousy job. Where does THAT end? I’m not entirely sure where the line is, but I will say that’d I’d never have gone that far, even when I lived in a place/time where I felt the same way as those lay folks seem to.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
I think it appropriate that the laity draw attention to a bishop that fails significantly to uphold Catholic values. Allegedly endorsing homosexual lifestyles and decriminalizing abortion isn’t in union with Catholic teachings. It’s possible that he is being misrepresented to a degree but a review shouldn’t be out of the question.
M
manualman
Guest
Isn’t there an apostolic nuncio you can write to in private for that sort of thing? Are public banners really the best way?
C
comrade1789
Guest
Agreed, that revolt by laity is not the answer. But in this unique situation, the Bishop is publically declaring through his position as Bishop, that the Church advocates what it does not; a responsible laity should make an equally if not more vociferous declaration of Catholic Orthodoxy if the Bishop is failing to do so. People’s souls are at stake, and if they have the mistaken belief that the Church says sodomy and abortion are acceptable, then we have a duty to correct that error. The Bishop is rightly denounced, publically because his error is a very public one.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
I see your point. Public discordancy by Catholics isn’t the best first option. However, if the nuncio fails to act, would it then be acceptable?
R
ringil
Guest
The Church isn’t a democracy. Laity need to learn their place.
C
Califman831
Guest
there would be no reason for the Laity to uprise if the Bishops would hold true to the faith instead of caving to modernism.
C
comrade1789
Guest
And what if their Bishop has forgotten, or rather betrayed his?
M
manualman
Guest
Then you hunker down, find other faithful catholics to help you, but retain you link to the legitimate local church. Maybe your apostle IS Judas, but he’s still your bishop.
Been there, done that. In spite of a diocese wide epidemic of heterodoxy, I could still find a parish to belong to with a solid pastor. I didn’t donate to the diocese, but did to the parish. I don’t think I ever wrote the nuncio, but I was 19 at the time and probably not articulate enough to be listened to.
I’m just not sure that overt insurrection is ever the right path to reform in the Church.
Been there, done that. In spite of a diocese wide epidemic of heterodoxy, I could still find a parish to belong to with a solid pastor. I didn’t donate to the diocese, but did to the parish. I don’t think I ever wrote the nuncio, but I was 19 at the time and probably not articulate enough to be listened to.
I’m just not sure that overt insurrection is ever the right path to reform in the Church.
C
comrade1789
Guest
I didn’t read anything about insurrection, revolt, or anything of that nature. I read that fed-up laity made a public denounciation of a Bishop who has repeatedly and publically shamed his Church with his error. They probably had had enough of it.
R
ringil
Guest
It’s not the place of the laity.
I grew up in a diocese with a pretty “creative” bishop who did some outlandish things but he was the bishop, period.
Like manualman says, join a parish you are comfortable with.
The Church has an order and it is not the right of the laity to denigrate their bishop.
I grew up in a diocese with a pretty “creative” bishop who did some outlandish things but he was the bishop, period.
Like manualman says, join a parish you are comfortable with.
The Church has an order and it is not the right of the laity to denigrate their bishop.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Tell that the people in south Florida who brought the pervasive problems of the diocese to the attention of Rome. Rome acted and the Archbishop there resigned before the mandatory age.
We have the *right *to be led by faithful clergy.
C
comrade1789
Guest
Eusebius, while still a layman, spoke against the heretical Bishop Nestorius; along with many other layman and priests. So it has precedence, and it isn’t a call for “democratizing” the Church, but reserved in unique circumstances when a Bishop has gone astray. It is appropriate to demand that our shepherds are handing on the Faith, faithfully.
H
Hboggs
Guest
If I find out my Bishop is Judas, I’ll go buy the rope and ship it UPS overnight delivery.
J
JReducation
Guest
There are several points of law here. Let’s take them one at a time.
On the other hand, we don’t know what the bishop actually said. What he said and what he is accused of saying may not be the same thing. I have seen this happen all too often with public figures, not just bishops. Common’ this even happened to the Pope with that whole condom issue. What he said was perfectly within the bounds of moral theology and philosophy. Most people have never studied moral theology or philosophy, so his reasoning went right over their heads. Moral theology is very tricky. It has a language all its own. It should have its own dictionary, if it already doesn’t.
But there is always the chance that the bishop may have said something that sounded outlandish and in fact is just out of the ordinary, as was the Pope’s comment on the condom. We have only one side of this story.
I’ll use myself as an example. I have a graduate and post graduate degree in theology. When the Pope made that comment, I had to call a buddy of mine who has a Doctorate in Moral Theology and ask him, “What did he say?” I knew that it couldn’t be what I was understanding. My doctorate is not in Moral Theology, so I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject. I’m in the area of Spiritual Theology. I can do those systems in my sleep.
When I hear that a bishop has said X, I always ask someone who knows about that particular field of theology for a clarification. Theology is like medicine. It has many branches and no one is an expert in all of them, not even the pope.
He is there to represent the Holy See before the Bishops Conference and the Civil Government. It is his job to ensure that the relationship between the Holy See and the Church in Mexico remain diplomatic and cordial.
If the Holy See chooses to intervene, it will do so through an Apostolic Visitor, who is usually a bishop from another country.
The nuncio can only watch and wait. This has nothing to do with diplomatic relations.
The laity has the right to complain. This has to be done through the proper chanels.
The laity also has an obligation to treat its bishop with reverence, regardless of his sins. This type of display will not win over the sympathy of Pope Benedict. He’s very hard set on this point. He has made it very clear that these problems must be dealt with at the local level by the Pronvince and work their way up to the Vatican. Pope Benedict has always defended the pinciple of subsidiarity.
I think it often happens is that people don’t know how and where to present their complaint. This leads to this kind of public confrontation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
No one in any position of authority may ever command sin or legalize what is gravely immoral. Such a command or law has no validity. It’s as if it did not exist.
On the other hand, we don’t know what the bishop actually said. What he said and what he is accused of saying may not be the same thing. I have seen this happen all too often with public figures, not just bishops. Common’ this even happened to the Pope with that whole condom issue. What he said was perfectly within the bounds of moral theology and philosophy. Most people have never studied moral theology or philosophy, so his reasoning went right over their heads. Moral theology is very tricky. It has a language all its own. It should have its own dictionary, if it already doesn’t.
But there is always the chance that the bishop may have said something that sounded outlandish and in fact is just out of the ordinary, as was the Pope’s comment on the condom. We have only one side of this story.
I’ll use myself as an example. I have a graduate and post graduate degree in theology. When the Pope made that comment, I had to call a buddy of mine who has a Doctorate in Moral Theology and ask him, “What did he say?” I knew that it couldn’t be what I was understanding. My doctorate is not in Moral Theology, so I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject. I’m in the area of Spiritual Theology. I can do those systems in my sleep.
When I hear that a bishop has said X, I always ask someone who knows about that particular field of theology for a clarification. Theology is like medicine. It has many branches and no one is an expert in all of them, not even the pope.
Nuncios have no jurisdiction in these matters. A nuncio is an embassador. Just like the US embassador to the Holy See cannot intervene in anything that the Holy See does, the Holy See’s embassador to Mexico cannot intervene in anything that the Mexican Government or the Church in Mexico do. He may not even express his opinion unless he’s asked by the Conference of Bishops. Otherwise, he’s overstepping his bounds, like any other emabassador.
He is there to represent the Holy See before the Bishops Conference and the Civil Government. It is his job to ensure that the relationship between the Holy See and the Church in Mexico remain diplomatic and cordial.
If the Holy See chooses to intervene, it will do so through an Apostolic Visitor, who is usually a bishop from another country.
The nuncio can only watch and wait. This has nothing to do with diplomatic relations.
Canon law says two things.
The laity has the right to complain. This has to be done through the proper chanels.
The laity also has an obligation to treat its bishop with reverence, regardless of his sins. This type of display will not win over the sympathy of Pope Benedict. He’s very hard set on this point. He has made it very clear that these problems must be dealt with at the local level by the Pronvince and work their way up to the Vatican. Pope Benedict has always defended the pinciple of subsidiarity.
We go back to the principle of subsidiarity. It is not appropriate for the laity to show any signs of disrespect toward their bishp. However, it is perfectly appropriate for the laity to complain to the proper authorities. This usually means a letter to the CDF or the Congregation for Bishops or both. They usually punt it back to the province, unless the bishop is the Metropolitan. In that case, the province has no authority over him and they have to deal with the problem.
As I said, Canon Law explicitly says that the laity must treat clergy and religious with reverence and support their apostolic work. There is no condition regarding the holiness or foolishness of the clergy or religious.
I think it often happens is that people don’t know how and where to present their complaint. This leads to this kind of public confrontation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
Tigg
Guest
Theology teaches us there is something called sensus fidei which is the power of the Spirit which helps the faithful adhere without error to the truth. When there were heretical bishops in the early Church, no one was going to tell those newly baptized Catholics that Christ was not divine because they knew better!
When we hear comments like this:
When we hear comments like this:
Know that *sensus fidei *is still alive and well in the Church today. We may stand on the power of the promises of Christ that HIS Church will not fail.
T
Tigg
Guest
Just another thought resulting from your comments…“Where does THAT end” when a bishop sues the faithful?
C
Califman831
Guest
Wasnt John the baptist considered laity and did he not speak out against the clergy?There are several points of law here. Let’s take them one at a time.
No one in any position of authority may ever command sin or legalize what is gravely immoral. Such a command or law has no validity. It’s as if it did not exist.
On the other hand, we don’t know what the bishop actually said. What he said and what he is accused of saying may not be the same thing. I have seen this happen all too often with public figures, not just bishops. Common’ this even happened to the Pope with that whole condom issue. What he said was perfectly within the bounds of moral theology and philosophy. Most people have never studied moral theology or philosophy, so his reasoning went right over their heads. Moral theology is very tricky. It has a language all its own. It should have its own dictionary, if it already doesn’t.
But there is always the chance that the bishop may have said something that sounded outlandish and in fact is just out of the ordinary, as was the Pope’s comment on the condom. We have only one side of this story.
I’ll use myself as an example. I have a graduate and post graduate degree in theology. When the Pope made that comment, I had to call a buddy of mine who has a Doctorate in Moral Theology and ask him, “What did he say?” I knew that it couldn’t be what I was understanding. My doctorate is not in Moral Theology, so I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject. I’m in the area of Spiritual Theology. I can do those systems in my sleep.
When I hear that a bishop has said X, I always ask someone who knows about that particular field of theology for a clarification. Theology is like medicine. It has many branches and no one is an expert in all of them, not even the pope.
Nuncios have no jurisdiction in these matters. A nuncio is an embassador. Just like the US embassador to the Holy See cannot intervene in anything that the Holy See does, the Holy See’s embassador to Mexico cannot intervene in anything that the Mexican Government or the Church in Mexico do. He may not even express his opinion unless he’s asked by the Conference of Bishops. Otherwise, he’s overstepping his bounds, like any other emabassador.
He is there to represent the Holy See before the Bishops Conference and the Civil Government. It is his job to ensure that the relationship between the Holy See and the Church in Mexico remain diplomatic and cordial.
If the Holy See chooses to intervene, it will do so through an Apostolic Visitor, who is usually a bishop from another country.
The nuncio can only watch and wait. This has nothing to do with diplomatic relations.
Canon law says two things.
The laity has the right to complain. This has to be done through the proper chanels.
The laity also has an obligation to treat its bishop with reverence, regardless of his sins. This type of display will not win over the sympathy of Pope Benedict. He’s very hard set on this point. He has made it very clear that these problems must be dealt with at the local level by the Pronvince and work their way up to the Vatican. Pope Benedict has always defended the pinciple of subsidiarity.
We go back to the principle of subsidiarity. It is not appropriate for the laity to show any signs of disrespect toward their bishp. However, it is perfectly appropriate for the laity to complain to the proper authorities. This usually means a letter to the CDF or the Congregation for Bishops or both. They usually punt it back to the province, unless the bishop is the Metropolitan. In that case, the province has no authority over him and they have to deal with the problem.
As I said, Canon Law explicitly says that the laity must treat clergy and religious with reverence and support their apostolic work. There is no condition regarding the holiness or foolishness of the clergy or religious.
I think it often happens is that people don’t know how and where to present their complaint. This leads to this kind of public confrontation.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status