Moral culpability of bishops and priests

[bobolink]

The bishop may be in error, but you have insufficient knowledge (the state of his soul is not accessible to you), and no authority, to proclaim that he sinned.

The bishop himself would know, if you drew his attention to his ignorance. He could also confirm with you whether or not he knew what he ought to have known.

What I am driving at here is that some things *are *knowable. Not everything is a cloudy haze.

If the bishop told me that he didn’t know about Redemptionis Sacramentum and its directives, then he ought to have known. That is my point. That is an objective fact. If he didn’t know, and has no good reason for not knowing (it would have to be a very good reason), then he has sinned, it is as simple as that.

 

[davidv]

The bishop himself would know, if you drew his attention to his ignorance. He could also confirm with you whether or not he knew what he ought to have known.

What I am driving at here is that some things *are *knowable. Not everything is a cloudy haze.

If the bishop told me that he didn’t know about Redemptionis Sacramentum and its directives, then he ought to have known. That is my point. That is an objective fact. If he didn’t know, and has no good reason for not knowing (it would have to be a very good reason), then he has sinned, it is as simple as that.

No, it is not as simple as that, you still have no visibility into his soul, so you cannot, and are prohibitted by Jesus’ command not to judge in this manner, determine whether he has sinned or not.

 

[bobolink]

No, it is not as simple as that, you still have no visibility into his soul, so you cannot, and are prohibitted by Jesus’ command not to judge in this manner, determine whether he has sinned or not.

I would say that objectively, one might discern that a sin had been committed, but whether one should, is another matter. St. Thomas seems to support my position. That is how it seems to me, anyway. My logic appears flawless.

 

[davidv]

I would say that objectively, one might discern that a sin had been committed, but whether one should, is another matter. St. Thomas seems to support my position. That is how it seems to me, anyway. My logic appears flawless.

Your logic may be flawless, but your conclusion is unsound as it is based on the false premise that you have the ability and authority to declare that someone other than yourself has committed a sin.

 

[bobolink]

Your logic may be flawless, but your conclusion is unsound as it is based on the false premise that you have the ability and authority to declare that someone other than yourself has committed a sin.

It appears to me that St. Thomas Aquinas gives one the criteria to do just that. Look at my logic:

1. A bishop ought to know what a bishop ought to know.
2. The bishop does not know.
3. All things being equal, the bishop’s not knowing is a sin.
4. Therefore, the bishop has committed a sin.

The only thing which could affect this is if, in our example of a bishop not distributing Holy Communion, he had a good reason, which, as far as I can see, could only be based on his personal health, or perhaps his own personal safety. Health, in so much as he has an illness, sore joints, whatever, or safety, say for example if he was in a war zone and asked somebody else to distribute Holy Communion so he could doge bullets behind the altar.

There would have to be a very good reason why a bishop would not distribute Holy Communion. If you spoke to the bishop after Mass, and asked him why he did not distribute Holy Communion, and he said ‘I didn’t know I was supposed to.,’ then you could point out to him the directives from the Church and he would realise his ignorance, and thus his sin. However, if he said, ‘I felt ill,’ then you would know he had a good reason. In any case, you would have to speak to the bishop before you could state that he had sinned.

This is all pie in the sky but it forms the basis for my argument.

 

[JRKH]

Let us look at the example of a bishop and his priest who, whilst at Mass, did not distribute Holy Communion.

Let’s see what RS says on this matter:

1. If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. **The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.**258

A bishop ought to know this. His not knowing it is a sin, because he ought to have known it. You could go up to him and ask him why he did not give out HC. He might say, ‘I feel ill’. Fine. But if he says, ‘Oh I didn’t know!’ You could (though you might not) say, oh well you should know, you are a bishop. Therefore you have sinned. Thomas Aquinas seems not to be allowing a bishop’s ignorance to excuse his not knowing. His not knowing is his sin. That is my point, and I don’t think it can be refuted.

A bishop ought to know what his Church teaches about the Eucharist.

A bishop is bound to know about the Eucharist. He ought to read Vatican documents on the Eucharist and implement them. If not, he sins, as St. Thomas says. You’d need to talk to the bishop first though to check the details before you could be sure he has sinned, as maybe, as someone said, he felt ill that day, or had sore joints. But all things being equal, if he does not know what he is meant to be doing, through lack of study, then he sins.

For someone who didn’t want to get too hung up on the specific example, you seem to be hanging on to it pretty hard, except of course when others offer alternatives to your view.

Lets’ see if I can make this clear -
You asked is you were right or your friend was right about whether we, or in this case YOU can say whether the bishop sinned or not. MY anser is that your friend is right. You or I do not have sufficent knowledge of the bishops duties, health, knoweldige, intent, or any number of other factors to say whether he has sinned or not.

Now - you can go on about what he should or should not know, what he should or should not do etc…but none of this touches on whether YOU personally are competant to determine whether his actions are sinful or not.

Peace
James

 

[bobolink]

For someone who didn’t want to get too hung up on the specific example, you seem to be hanging on to it pretty hard, except of course when others offer alternatives to your view.

Lets’ see if I can make this clear -
You asked is you were right or your friend was right about whether we, or in this case YOU can say whether the bishop sinned or not. MY anser is that your friend is right. You or I do not have sufficent knowledge of the bishops duties, health, knoweldige, intent, or any number of other factors to say whether he has sinned or not.

Now - you can go on about what he should or should not know, what he should or should not do etc…but none of this touches on whether YOU personally are competant to determine whether his actions are sinful or not.

Peace
James

Right now I am not competent, because it is not my job to do that and besides, I’d need to speak with the bishop first to get the details, which he may not provide. This is all hypothetical. But if you spoke to the bishop and he gave you the necessary information, then you would be able to form a judgement. I am not saying you should form a judgement, but that you could. If the bishop said he didn’t know about that directive from Redemptionis Sacramentum, then you could say ‘Ah, well in that case, you have sinned, because you ought to have known, according to St. Thomas Aquinas.’ Do you follow my logic?

 

[davidv]

Right now I am not competent, because it is not my job to do that and besides, I’d need to speak with the bishop first to get the details, which he may not provide. This is all hypothetical. But if you spoke to the bishop and he gave you the necessary information, then you would be able to form a judgement. I am not saying you should form a judgement, but that you could. If the bishop said he didn’t know about that directive from Redemptionis Sacramentum, then you could say ‘Ah, well in that case, you have sinned, because you ought to have known, according to St. Thomas Aquinas.’ Do you follow my logic?

Too many if’s. Not only that, none of this logic demonstrates that you can see into the bishops heart, no matter what he might tell you, that authorizes you to judge whether he is in sin.
Your quote from Thomas only applies to the bishop and his confessor.

 

[edwest2]

When you say “sin” do you mean mortal or venial? Not all inappropriate behavior is sinful. It could be a serious fault, which can lead to sin. Not following the official instructions for mass I think is not considered sinful after Vat II. Before for a priest to abuse the rubrics it was considered a mortal sin, much like meat on Friday used to be.

If you are talking about doctrine, then, that most likely could be a mortal sin, only if the said doctrine has no confusion surrounding it. For example if a priest/bishop taught against Limbo for unbaptized babies before Vat II, it would have been considered sinful by most lay people but now it is considered debatable. If it is debatable now it was debatable then, but not widely known, so depending on the education of the average lay person, who thought teaching against Limbo before Vat. II was sinful, and a well instructed priest/bishop who knew it was debatable, there is room for error. So unfortunately when dealing with sin one has to be precise in the offense and, as has been said, not deal with generalities.

On the other hand,
I do think that most Bishops are negligent to the point of being sinful (sloth or vanity --worried what people will think) whether mortal or venial I don’t know. Most Bishops are lost in confusion though, there is so much confusion in the Church that many just can’t get a straight answer.

We can know them by their fruits. Has the Catholic Church gained or lost conversions? I would say in general the Church is imploding in developed counties.(Pollyanna-Catholics would disagree) Many call themselves Catholic but don’t believe what is necessary and really could careless. Most of these pseudo-Catholics deny the teaching on contraception (confused more by the Pope and Homosexual prostitutes )

How many sermons have you heard in your parish/diocese about urgatory, Mortal /Venial sin, need for monthly Confession, True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Contraception, Abortion, Stem Cell research…etc
Answers to objections: by Protestants, the new Atheist movement, Jehovah Witnesses,…etc
About the internal problems in the Church:
Modernism, Americanism, Validity of Novus Ordo Mass…etc…

(Unfortunately priests are so badly instructed that one said I was sinning because I told him after mass I couldn’t hear him, because the microphone was off. Other than that he is a pretty orthodox priest - eccentric but good)

The Pollyanna-Catholics want to pretend everything is ok,( which I assume your friend thinks) but we are closing Churches and most Catholic families can say a majority of their families don’t practice the Faith, and if they do they have reservations on certain essential teachings. This destruction must be traced back to some sin/s that the Church has just not corrected.

You are assuming a lot. The Catholic population has risen:

traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/catholic-population-rising/

The Church is concerned about new priests:

ncregister.com/info/email-a-friend/vatican_visitations_aimed_at_producing_faithful_american_priests

The problems of the last 40 years will not be fixed overnight.

Churches are closing because too many people want to have sex but not kids. This was part of a warning issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. The Baby Boomers are past their child bearing years and will remain the largest demographic in this country till they die.

Here is additional information that should be helpful:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8781

There is also a large-scale effort to invite Catholics back and to offer the faith to those of other religions or no religion.

catholicscomehome.org/

Peace,
Ed

 

[JRKH]

Right now I am not competent, because it is not my job to do that and besides, I’d need to speak with the bishop first to get the details, which he may not provide. This is all hypothetical. But if you spoke to the bishop and he gave you the necessary information, then you would be able to form a judgement. I am not saying you should form a judgement, but that you could. If the bishop said he didn’t know about that directive from Redemptionis Sacramentum, then you could say ‘Ah, well in that case, you have sinned, because you ought to have known, according to St. Thomas Aquinas.’ Do you follow my logic?

Yes I do follow your logic. I don’t agree with it.

You and I agree that we cannot say if a bishop has sinned that we don’t have the necessary competence…That is all that was asked about. So your friend was right.

There may be, and indeed are those who can make a competent judgement in these matters, but I would suggest that, even if we, as laymen, were to speak to the bishop and hear his side or whatever, this would not make us competant to be his Judge on whether he sinned or not. That is not our task and it is best to leave it alone because, we will be judged by how we judged others.

Peace
James

 

[chypmonk]

You are assuming a lot. The Catholic population has risen:

traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/catholic-population-rising/

The Church is concerned about new priests:

ncregister.com/info/email-a-friend/vatican_visitations_aimed_at_producing_faithful_american_priests

The problems of the last 40 years will not be fixed overnight.

Churches are closing because too many people want to have sex but not kids. This was part of a warning issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968. The Baby Boomers are past their child bearing years and will remain the largest demographic in this country till they die.

Here is additional information that should be helpful:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8781

There is also a large-scale effort to invite Catholics back and to offer the faith to those of other religions or no religion.

catholicscomehome.org/

Peace,
Ed

I didn’t have a chance to read all your links, but thanks, I will read them when I have more time, but it doesn’t look as promising as you think. This is from the link you gave catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8781:

"3) Massive losses among native-born Catholics have not only been significant but staggering, so much so that those who conducted the survey wrote in their analysis, “Catholicism has lost more people to other religions or to no religion at all than any other single religious group.”

Some conclusions and opinions

So, what are we to make of all this? Well, the numbers speak for themselves but they also confirm and quantify what many seasoned pastors have known or suspected for years now. We have lost a massive part of the Church. It explains why we have been able to cut back the number of Masses in many places, why there are so many gray heads in many places, and why there are so many empty pews in many places.

However, if this rebuilding is to have maximum success, we need a plan. The first step in solving any problem is to admit that a problem exists, something many Church leaders have thus far been unwilling to do."

I think this is accurate the Church leaders are either in denial or have no idea what to do.

Check this out even though they say they are Catholic they are so clueless that they don’t even know what it means to be Catholic:

‘Atheists and agnostics know more about religion than Protestants and Catholics’

Forty-five per cent of Roman Catholics who participated in the study didn’t know that, according to church teaching, the bread and wine used in Holy Communion is not just a symbol, but becomes the body and blood of Christ. telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8030195/Atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-religion-than-Protestants-and-Catholics.html

 

[chypmonk]

I would say that objectively, one might discern that a sin had been committed, but whether one should, is another matter. St. Thomas seems to support my position. That is how it seems to me, anyway. My logic appears flawless.

Have you determined that NOT following the directives is sinful? So it may be a fault but we really don’t know if it is sinful, yet.

 

[chypmonk]

Originally Posted by edwest2
You are assuming a lot. The Catholic population has risen:…

I got a chance to look over the other links you gave. The fist one puts a positive spin in the title but in the article it said that many Catholics are being lost to Protestants and your link traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/catholic-population-rising/ said :

The evangelical Protestantism preached within its walls (and on screens outside) has taken off in Central America. Estimates vary, but according to the State Department of the United States, **barely 50% of Salvadorans now identify as Catholic, **and in Honduras and Belize the share has dropped below half. Nicaragua is close behind.

Salvador should be 90% to 100% Catholic.

The only positive is Mexico still seems to be 90% which is great. But in Europe, USA, Canada and Central America it is all down. Increases in third world countries such as Africa and southern Asia help but it is just a matter of time till they catch the same modernistic disease we have. Unless we can find an answer.

Where did you find this second link? Fr. Neuhaus died 2 years ago and he isn’t the stamp of orthodoxy either. He was a semi-Origenist ( very hetrdox belief but Ignatius press loves em that’s good enough for “orthodox” Catholics) like Von Balthazar link here They are a big part of the problem of why people are leaving the Church! They said hell exists but no one goes there!

Well, I hope all of us are motivated by a pure love of God, but that is perfect love, imperfect love is motive by fear of hell. If no one goes there a big percentage of Catholics will ask, “then why be Catholic?”

 

[chypmonk]

Originally Posted by edwest2
You are assuming a lot. The Catholic population has risen:…

I got a chance to look over the other links you gave. The fist one puts a positive spin in the title but in the article it said that many Catholics are being lost to Protestants in your link traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/catholic-population-rising/ said :

The evangelical Protestantism preached within its walls (and on screens outside) has taken off in Central America. Estimates vary, but according to the State Department of the United States, **barely 50% of Salvadorans now identify as Catholic, **and in Honduras and Belize the share has dropped below half. Nicaragua is close behind.

Salvador should be 90% to 100% Catholic.

The only positive is Mexico still seems to be 90% which is great. But in Europe, USA, Canada and Central America it is all down. Increases in third world countries such as Africa and southern Asia help to offset loss but it is just a matter of time till they catch the same modernistic disease we have. Unless we can find an answer.

Where did you find this second link? Fr. Neuhaus died 2 years ago and he isn’t the stamp of orthodoxy either. He was a semi-Origenist ( very hetrdox belief but Ignatius Press loves 'em that’s good enough for American “orthodox” Catholics) like Von Balthazar link here They are a big part of the problem of why people are leaving the Church! They said hell exists but no one goes there!

Well, I hope all of us are motivated by a pure love of God, but that is perfect love, imperfect love is motive by fear of hell. If no one goes there a big percentage of Catholics will ask, “then why bother to be Catholic?”

Your evangelistic link catholicscomehome.org/while noble in its aim, seems to be reinventing the wheel. Don’t we already have religious orders that should be doing this? I mean if the “new springtime” is here why aren’t they doing this? It just seems to be dividing up a shrinking Catholic population’s resources. About 5 orthodox groups ask my family for money and now there is one more new lay apostolate? Don’t get me wrong I like that he is doing something but it just shows that the "official teaching " Church is still living the 1960’s thinking everything is going to be ok once Vat II is completely implemented!!
BTW in the video they have a little girl receiving first communion all in white with white gloves and receiving on the tongue! I don’t think I have EVER seen that in my life time in the USA. Isn’t that a little false advertising LOL?

 

[AHapka]

Your logic may be flawless, but your conclusion is unsound as it is based on the false premise that you have the ability and authority to declare that someone other than yourself has committed a sin.

Wait a second. Lets say that I were to tell you that I’m skipping Mass to sleep in. By your logic, you could not tell me that I’m sinning?

I completely agree that we can’t judge the state of someone’s soul, or say for sure that a sin is mortal for another.

But it seems to me that we can call an action a sin. And I think that if I specifically state that I’m skipping Mass to sleep in, others would be justified in telling me that I am sinning.

 

[bobolink]

Wait a second. Lets say that I were to tell you that I’m skipping Mass to sleep in. By your logic, you could not tell me that I’m sinning?

I completely agree that we can’t judge the state of someone’s soul, or say for sure that a sin is mortal for another.

But it seems to me that we can call an action a sin. And I think that if I specifically state that I’m skipping Mass to sleep in, others would be justified in telling me that I am sinning.

Exactly.

And as my example explained, according to Thomas’ logic, if you spoke to the bishop after Mass, asked him if he was aware of the directives from RS, and he says no, then you could say, well you ought to have known. Your not knowing is a sin. Simple! I think maybe we just complicate things too much. I dunno.

 

[underacloud]

Exactly.

And as my example explained, according to Thomas’ logic, if you spoke to the bishop after Mass, asked him if he was aware of the directives from RS, and he says no, then you could say, well you ought to have known. Your not knowing is a sin. Simple! I think maybe we just complicate things too much. I dunno.

Simple!

Except for one point. I’ll remind you of a premise in your logic:

“All things being equal”

Even if the bishop does not know the directive, can you assume that he does not have a reasonable excuse? Do you know that all things are equal? Perhaps he read the directive but has forgotten. Perhaps he has so many duties as a bishop that staying abreast of all appropriate documents coming from Rome is a difficult task. All things being equal, he ought to know it. But all things not being equal (and they rarely are), who is to decide what a bishop ought to know?

As davidv said earlier: too many ifs.

 

[bobolink]

Simple!

Except for one point. I’ll remind you of a premise in your logic:

“All things being equal”

Even if the bishop does not know the directive, can you assume that he does not have a reasonable excuse? Do you know that all things are equal? Perhaps he read the directive but has forgotten. Perhaps he has so many duties as a bishop that staying abreast of all appropriate documents coming from Rome is a difficult task. All things being equal, he ought to know it. But all things not being equal (and they rarely are), who is to decide what a bishop ought to know?

As davidv said earlier: too many ifs.

Yeah I agree.

I suggested before that perhaps his copy of RS got lost in the mail and he never saw it, therefore he would not be culpable.

Let’s leave this alone now.

 

[JRKH]

Wait a second. Lets say that I were to tell you that I’m skipping Mass to sleep in. By your logic, you could not tell me that I’m sinning?

I completely agree that we can’t judge the state of someone’s soul, or say for sure that a sin is mortal for another.

But it seems to me that we can call an action a sin. And I think that if I specifically state that I’m skipping Mass to sleep in, others would be justified in telling me that I am sinning.

In such a scenerio perhaps you are right. But is the above scenerio is not analagous to the one in the OP.
In the scenerio above you have explicit information as to what is being done and why…and even then we aren’t told why you feel the need to sleep in…I mean were out drinking till all hours (bad excuse)? Or perhaps you just got back in from 12 hours of fighting an apartment house fire and are totally all in…Very different reasons for missing mass.

In the scenerio offered by the OP, there are a lot of unknowns about the specifics of things. He knows what he sees, and he knows what he thinks should be correct, but he does not know the details of the reasoning…Sort of like me not knowing why you choose to sleep in…

Peace
James

 

[AHapka]

In such a scenerio perhaps you are right. But is the above scenerio is not analagous to the one in the OP.
In the scenerio above you have explicit information as to what is being done and why…and even then we aren’t told why you feel the need to sleep in…I mean were out drinking till all hours (bad excuse)? Or perhaps you just got back in from 12 hours of fighting an apartment house fire and are totally all in…Very different reasons for missing mass.

In the scenerio offered by the OP, there are a lot of unknowns about the specifics of things. He knows what he sees, and he knows what he thinks should be correct, but he does not know the details of the reasoning…Sort of like me not knowing why you choose to sleep in…

Peace
James

Ahhh, this is true. For sake of argument only, I’ve been trying to think of a sin where if you see it committed you can say that it is sinful. Without getting any other information. And without the opportunity for other information to mitigate it’s sinfulness or make it not sinful. It’s hard and I can think of very few.

I can think of adultery. I am married. If you happen to catch me in the act of having sex with another woman, I don’t see how any other information gained would excuse or mitigate the sin.