Moral culpability of bishops and priests

[bobolink]

My friend and I had an argument/debate about this topic. He said that you cannot say that a bishop has sinned who fails in his duties. For example, a bishop ought to know about the norms for offering the Mass. He ought to make sure that his priests are following the norms in the celebration of the Eucharist. He must also teach and guide his people. A bishop might not do any of these things, or might fail miserably. Is he without sin?

I would argue that you can say that a bishop has sinned who fails to do what he ought to. If he doesn’t know what he ought to know and to do, that is culpable ignorance - ignorance which adversely affects the salvation prospects of the people for which he is responsible as a father and apostle.

Who is correct then - me or my friend? he says you cannot say that a bad bishop has sinned, only God knows, or me, who says that yes you can say a bishop has sinned, even if he didn’t know what he ought to have known - he’s a bishop and because of his office and vocation, he ought to know what he is supposed to know and to do.

This article from CatholicCulture.org was useful to me:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Following what norms?!?

Can’t help but think you’re being deliberately vague here to win your argument…

:ehh:

In general, I’d say he is probably without sin, if he has no intention to sin

 

[po18guy]

James 3:1 “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness”.

Luke 12:48 "But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. "

Brotherly correction extends to all members of this human family, Bishops included. So do each of the medicinal remedies which the Church retains the authority to employ against her members - up to and including excommunication. If not, why do Bishops (and the Bishop of Rome as well) have to regularly confess their sins? I live in an Archdiocese in which a sitting Archbishop was stripped of authority on major issues. Yes, they can sin. Yes, they can be sanctioned.

 

[JRKH]

My friend and I had an argument/debate about this topic. He said that you cannot say that a bishop has sinned who fails in his duties. For example, a bishop ought to know about the norms for offering the Mass. He ought to make sure that his priests are following the norms in the celebration of the Eucharist. He must also teach and guide his people. A bishop might not do any of these things, or might fail miserably. Is he without sin?

I would argue that you can say that a bishop has sinned who fails to do what he ought to. If he doesn’t know what he ought to know and to do, that is culpable ignorance - ignorance which adversely affects the salvation prospects of the people for which he is responsible as a father and apostle.

Who is correct then - me or my friend? he says you cannot say that a bad bishop has sinned, only God knows, or me, who says that yes you can say a bishop has sinned, even if he didn’t know what he ought to have known - he’s a bishop and because of his office and vocation, he ought to know what he is supposed to know and to do.

This article from CatholicCulture.org was useful to me:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

You cannot say whether he sinned or not. Only God can do this.

If a bishop fails to properly lead out of ignorance, then culpability is lessened I see no reason to change this.
But the question needs to be asked if ANY bishop in todays’ world truly misleads out of ignorance. This is where it gets dicey…Yes a Bishop should know, but then a bishop also has a lot of latitude in many areas (such as “norms”) within his diocese.
So the only place where one could say that a Bishop might be sinning in how he discharges his duties, would be if he is deliberately failing to teach and act properly in areas where he odes NOT have latitude.
Even then, the only thing the faithful could do is to contact Rome and ask for the matter to be looked into.

Peace
James

 

[bobolink]

I’ll give an example.

Last year, I watched my bishop and parish priest sit in the sanctuary while another priest and some lay people distributed Holy Communion.

Look at what INAESTIMABILE DONUM says:

Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.

Now, I would say a bishop and priest ought to know this. Have they both not read this document? Oughtn’t they to know this? Is this not a case of culpable ignorance as well as clericalism of the worst kind? I would say the bishop ought to know, and his not knowing is a sin, a sin of omission because as a bishop he ought to know fully what his role and responsibilities are. It’s not like it’s difficult. I know, and I am just a simple young layman with an internet connection!

Now, if I were to approach my bishop about this, what do you reckon would happen? Would he take the correction, or would he label me a nut and ignore me?

 

[JRKH]

I’ll give an example.

Last year, I watched my bishop and parish priest sit in the sanctuary while another priest and some lay people distributed Holy Communion.

Look at what INAESTIMABILE DONUM says:

Now, I would say a bishop and priest ought to know this. Have they both not read this document? Oughtn’t they to know this? Is this not a case of culpable ignorance as well as clericalism of the worst kind? I would say the bishop ought to know, and his not knowing is a sin, a sin of omission because as a bishop he ought to know fully what his role and responsibilities are. It’s not like it’s difficult. I know, and I am just a simple young layman with an internet connection!

Now, if I were to approach my bishop about this, what do you reckon would happen? Would he take the correction, or would he label me a nut and ignore me?

Why don’t you use your internet connection and contact the chancery and find out.

Peace
James

 

[underacloud]

Who is correct then - me or my friend? he says you cannot say that a bad bishop has sinned, only God knows, or me, who says that yes you can say a bishop has sinned, even if he didn’t know what he ought to have known - he’s a bishop and because of his office and vocation, he ought to know what he is supposed to know and to do.

It’s one thing to say that a bishop or priest was neglectful in their duties, and another thing to say they have sinned. As your friend says, only God knows. Why be so determined to decide on the sinfulness of others?

Matthew 7: 1-2 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

 

[ANNE_2]

Yes, you can correct an erring Bishop in an act of Charity and in Truth. In fact, if he is unresponsive you can write to the Vatican. Remember that on occasion the Bishop does not know what a problem may be in his Diocese, and a Staff person could be making wrong decisions. Again, it is an act of Charity to correct errors.

But you should use one or more Documents approved by the Catholic Church to insure accuracy.

1. “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” regarding Church Doctrine;
2. Roman Missal;
   or
3. GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) regarding liturgical issues;
4. Canon Code of Law (on Vatican web site).

 

[bobolink]

I want to know because we were having a respectful arguement and he thinks he’s right and I think I’m right. It would appear that St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with me:

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. **Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; **whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. **On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; **but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

– Summa Theologica

This is important to me, because my friend presumes that he is correct, whereas I think I am correct. I’d hoped that some folks on here would be able to assist me in coming to the correct conclusion. I am open to being corrected myself!

I’m not interested in correcting the bishop. I am training to be a catechist and don’t want to shoot my future prospects down to prove a point. What I want to know is if you can objective state that a bishop has sinned through ignorance about matters he ought to know about.

 

[underacloud]

What I want to know is if you can objective state that a bishop has sinned through ignorance about matters he ought to know about.

Perhaps the bishop was feeling a little dizzy and chose to sit down. Perhaps he had some joint pain from standing up to that point (Bisphops often being older). Do you KNOW that this wasn’t the case? Do you KNOW that there isn’t another explanation that is perfectly acceptable?

Can you OBJECTIVELY state that the bishop has sinned? No.

 

[francisca]

Isn’t it possible that he (the priest) was just tired on that day, or even ill?
To accuse him of neglect is kind of “quick to judge”. God is slow in anger.

 

[bobolink]

Perhaps the bishop was feeling a little dizzy and chose to sit down. Perhaps he had some joint pain from standing up to that point (Bisphops often being older). Do you KNOW that this wasn’t the case? Do you KNOW that there isn’t another explanation that is perfectly acceptable?

Can you OBJECTIVELY state that the bishop has sinned? No.

Don’t hone in on that one example, otherwise you will miss the point. My question is whether or not a bishop sins through his own ignorance of matters he ought to know about. I am happy with St. Thomas Aquinas conclusion, above.

 

[bobolink]

Isn’t it possible that he (the priest) was just tired on that day, or even ill?
To accuse him of neglect is kind of “quick to judge”. God is slow in anger.

Both the priest and the bishop sat back during Holy Communion. If we allow that the older bishop was tired, the priest is fit and able every other day of the week. No, I’m pretty confident that this was done to allow laity to ‘participate’. My parish is pretty liberal and we have about 5 EMHC each Sunday. I have also witnessed, in this same church, about 20 priests on the altar at a big Mass, and they still used EMHC. Don’t tell me all those priests were all tired and had sore joints! No, there is a definite decision here to allow ‘lay participation’. To think otherwise is naive.

 

[underacloud]

Don’t hone in on that one example, otherwise you will miss the point. My question is whether or not a bishop sins through his own ignorance of matters he ought to know about. I am happy with St. Thomas Aquinas conclusion, above.

That’s the only example you have given. As Mystic Banana said, you’re being vague. When pressed, you gave an example, which presumably you think is a clear example of where the bishop has erred, but as francisca and I have pointed out, there may be very ligitimate reasons for the bishops actions.

A bishop has a lot of responsibilities and many church documents to be aware of. I’m sure if you took a technical assessment of any given bishop, you’d find areas where their knowledge or practice is not in keeping with the strict letter of the law.

Even for a bishop who seems to rountinely and callously break rules, can you objectively say they have sinned? Perhaps a bishop may have undiagnosed dimensia, or similar mental impairment, that is affecting them. It’s an extreme example, but when you’re asking for an objective answer, you need to rule out all mitigating factors. I don’t believe you can do that. You may judge that the bishop isn’t doing his job well, but let God judge the bishop’s sinfulness.

 

[davidv]

I want to know because we were having a respectful arguement and he thinks he’s right and I think I’m right. It would appear that St. Thomas Aquinas would agree with me:

– Summa Theologica

This is important to me, because my friend presumes that he is correct, whereas I think I am correct. I’d hoped that some folks on here would be able to assist me in coming to the correct conclusion. I am open to being corrected myself!

I’m not interested in correcting the bishop. I am training to be a catechist and don’t want to shoot my future prospects down to prove a point. What I want to know is if you can objective state that a bishop has sinned through ignorance about matters he ought to know about.

Why is it so important the you be correct in this case?

You say you want to know. Why do you have a right to know what another’s sins are? This is between God and the sinner only.

You can judge the correctness of a particular action. However, you cannot know the heart, so you cannot make a judgement as to whether there is guilt of sin involved.

 

[bobolink]

Why is it so important the you be correct in this case?

You say you want to know. Why do you have a right to know what another’s sins are? This is between God and the sinner only.

You can judge the correctness of a particular action. However, you cannot know the heart, so you cannot make a judgement as to whether there is guilt of sin involved.

St. Thomas Aquinas would appear to support my position. If anyone can refute Thomas, I’m all ears!

 

[chypmonk]

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.

 

[JRKH]

St. Thomas Aquinas would appear to support my position. If anyone can refute Thomas, I’m all ears!

I agree with your earlier comment not to get too specific with regards teh example you offered, but I also think it important that we likewise remain focused on what you asked in your opening post…You asked us to decide:
Who is correct then - me or my friend? he says you cannot say that a bad bishop has sinned, only God knows, or me, who says that yes you can say a bishop has sinned, even if he didn’t know what he ought to have known - he’s a bishop and because of his office and vocation, he ought to know what he is supposed to know and to do.

Now there are two things here.
One is whether a Bishop can sin - which of course he can. Now one is going to dispute that. And therefore no one has to refute St Thomas in this becuase you have not asked us to say whether a Bishop can sin or not.
The other thing, and what you have actually asked us is whether you (or I or we or whomever) can say that thebishop has sinned.
That is quite a different question.
I think you will agree that we, as faithful Catholics in the pews know little about our bishops in any real personal sense. That we know little of their hearts or their reasonings. That we must accept that they are in their position over us by the grace of God and the Approval of the Holy See
At most, if we see, or seriously suspect grave error, we can note these things and ask about them and, if necessary, report them to the proper authorities within the church. It is then up to that authority to make determination. .

So - it is not up to us, the faithful, to say that our bishop has “sinned”. That would be up to the proper authority within the Church.
Therefore I say that there are those who can say that a bishop has sinned, but that it is not us.

Peace
James

 

[bobolink]

I agree with your earlier comment not to get too specific with regards teh example you offered, but I also think it important that we likewise remain focused on what you asked in your opening post…You asked us to decide:
Who is correct then - me or my friend? he says you cannot say that a bad bishop has sinned, only God knows, or me, who says that yes you can say a bishop has sinned, even if he didn’t know what he ought to have known - he’s a bishop and because of his office and vocation, he ought to know what he is supposed to know and to do.

Now there are two things here.
One is whether a Bishop can sin - which of course he can. Now one is going to dispute that. And therefore no one has to refute St Thomas in this becuase you have not asked us to say whether a Bishop can sin or not.
The other thing, and what you have actually asked us is whether you (or I or we or whomever) can say that thebishop has sinned.
That is quite a different question.
I think you will agree that we, as faithful Catholics in the pews know little about our bishops in any real personal sense. That we know little of their hearts or their reasonings. That we must accept that they are in their position over us by the grace of God and the Approval of the Holy See
At most, if we see, or seriously suspect grave error, we can note these things and ask about them and, if necessary, report them to the proper authorities within the church. It is then up to that authority to make determination. .

So - it is not up to us, the faithful, to say that our bishop has “sinned”. That would be up to the proper authority within the Church.
Therefore I say that there are those who can say that a bishop has sinned, but that it is not us.

Peace
James

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.

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. **On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; **but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

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.

 

[davidv]

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.

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.