K
koda
Guest
Penny Plain:
Amen!
Please write to the editor of the LA diocese newspaper Tidings. This is outrageous!
- Status
K
koda
Guest
Oh, one more thing. It is my diocese and it is my paper. I’m glad we’ve got somebody in it to counter Weigel, whom I find to be insufferably self-righteous. 
C
Confiteor
Guest
Penny Plain:
Yes, we’re all imperfect, and even Hitler had the trains running on time. If we honor public figure who engage in scandalous conduct counter to the Church’s non negotiable moral teachings, WE will have no hope of building up the kingdom of God. Of course there are issues that are not matters of settled doctrine that the bishops may comment on and on which other Catholics may legitimately disagree (as they pointed out when they themselves put out their statement on capital punishment). BUT, that said, one would hope that the bishops would adhere to their own document on politicians who stray from Church teaching. (Which is the issue in question.)
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
My mistake. I didn’t realize McBrien was a bishop. Are all bishops bound to agree to the Conference’s conclusions, then?
I am not familiar with Bishop McBrien. I went and read maybe a half dozen of his articles. I didn’t see anything that looked heretical, but maybe I’m not the right person to look. I guess this is one of those things where everybody knows he’s a bad man, and I should pay more attention.
C
Catholic29
Guest
If that is so, how does Matthew 16 and 882 from the Catechism play in here? Or are we into the rock versus little pebble debate?
Matthew 16: 18-19:
And from the Catechism, which I assume you accept if you are Catholic:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
C
Catholic29
Guest
Penny Plain:
Correction, McBrien is NOT a bishop thank goodness. But a priest and theology professor at the University of Notre Dame, which is bad enough as it is.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Why hasn’t he been dealt with by the bishop? 
C
Confiteor
Guest
Penny Plain:
You could also probably argue that Fr. McBrien being allowed to say the kind of things he does in a diocesan paper is also inconsistent with the bishops’ statement (i.e. it gives him a platform and he seems to be out of sync with the Church on a number of moral issues), but that isn’t what I was saying. Many dissident clergy have a talent for carefully stated ambiguity --they often choose their words carefully without actually coming out and “acting in defiance of the Church’s moral teachings.” That is, they can do a lot of damage to the Faith while remaining under the radar of things that would trigger disciplinary measures. That is especially true of someone like Fr. McBrien who always seems to be on television.
No sorry for the confusion, he’s not a bishop. I meant that what happened in Boston was under the jurisdiction of a bishop who was obligated to act according to the 2004 policy, What happens in LA is under the auspices of a bishop/cardinal…Fr. McBrien’s comments in his column seem to go against the bishops intended approach to pro-abortion inidviduals. The mayor was honored by Catholic Charities (an act in conflict with the bishops’ statement); that’s wrong and that is the main point.
You could also probably argue that Fr. McBrien being allowed to say the kind of things he does in a diocesan paper is also inconsistent with the bishops’ statement (i.e. it gives him a platform and he seems to be out of sync with the Church on a number of moral issues), but that isn’t what I was saying. Many dissident clergy have a talent for carefully stated ambiguity --they often choose their words carefully without actually coming out and “acting in defiance of the Church’s moral teachings.” That is, they can do a lot of damage to the Faith while remaining under the radar of things that would trigger disciplinary measures. That is especially true of someone like Fr. McBrien who always seems to be on television.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
So you’re saying that he isn’t actually saying anything bad, but we all know he’s thinking bad things?
The original poster wanted him dropped from the Los Angeles paper because his articles are heretical. Now you say that, because of his “carefully stated ambiguity,” he’s not actually saying anything heretical.
If he’s not actually saying anything heretical, why drop the column?
C
Confiteor
Guest
Penny Plain:
I agree with the original poster…his record of dissent is very clear. He’s not been faithful to the Church in much of what he has said in the media, in Tidings and elsewhere. (In my opinion, we would be better off if he stopped shooting his month off on his opinions, always in what seems to be a very public way.) Whether or not some of his statements equate to heresy is something that his bishop could take a look at. Moreover, it doesn’t take a certified heretic to do a lot of harm to the deposit of faith. More to the point, though, he’s just not correct in defending the award by Catholic Charities to a pro-abortion politician. That was supposed to have been prohibited as of 18 months ago.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
Confiteor said:
I’m just trying to understand your position. You’d stop him from speaking entirely, if you could?
According to the USCCB, anyway. Is it your view that the wisdom of such a prohibition is something that we, as Catholics, are not even permitted to discuss? Sort of like female ordination?
F
fix
Guest
You are claiming the pope hold no more authority than any other bishop?
**882 **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
**937 **The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (*CD *2).
If a priest or bishop rejects the teaching of the Pope I will stand with the Pope, not the dissenting priest or bishop.
S
st.jerome
Guest
My reading of faithfulness to the Church is primarily in the willingness to attend Church and go to Confession. As for what he says, I think that a person should be given plenty of “room to move around” outside of definite renouncements. If the priest is to say “abortion is good,” then we have a reason to react strongly. If, however, he chooses to admire a politician for reasons other than his stand on abortion, then it would not be wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Heresy, being a question of doctrine, would be very hard to pronounce in a case like this. I don’t see Fr. McBrien speaking about questions of doctrine. The best a bishop could do is probe him on questions of that nature.
F
frommi
Guest
From the 1995 encyclical:
"[sic] When the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also “vicars and ambassadors of Christ”, The Bishop of Rome is a member of the “College”, and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry. (7)
F
fix
Guest
Yes, and that is properly undsertood by the following:
F
frommi
Guest
Not at all…but I think we have to be very clear on what the authority of the pope is…there is a big difference between the spirtiual and unifying authority of the petrine office and the desire to centralize all decision making to Rome as though the curia somehow greater than the episcopate.
To put oneself at odds with the Pope would require quite an act of schism (like ordaining a married man at Sunday mass).
G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
A friend recently sent me the article below
Catholic theologian Robert Fastiggi has analyzed McBrien’s book Catholicism and shown how McBrien so cleverly, so subtly, distorts the Catholic faith in fundamental matters — thus betraying the Church, whose doctrine he is paid to preach, by engaging in what C. S. Lewis has likened to prostitution.
Fastiggi’s article in Pastoral and Homiletic Review, June 1996, begins thus:
**McBrien’s Catholicism is a dangerous book because
it cloaks dissent in the
**vocabulary of the language of Catholicism itself. ****
**The methodology of ambiguity: Richard McBrien’s revised Catholicism **
By Robert Fastiggi
If one were to judge a book by its (back) cover, the newly revised edition of Richard McBrien’s Catholicism would have all the appearances of a clear, competent and complete guide to the teachings of the Catholic Church. With praises from diverse authorities, ranging from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury to theologians from Fordham, Boston College and the Gregorianum, this impressive-looking volume seems to possess all the academic credentials needed to be considered the book on “Catholicism.”
As is well-known, though, we cannot judge a book by its cover, and the question that must be asked is whether Fr. McBrien has presented Catholicism as it really is or Catholicism as he would want it to be. Of course, credit should be given where credit is due. Any book of over 1200 pages surely deserves some recognition for the work that went into it, and if one is looking for a quick summary of the thought of theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng and Johannes Metz, McBrien’s book is certainly useful. However, if one is looking for a clear and faithful exposition of authentic Catholic teaching, one would be well-advised to steer clear of McBrien’s opus and concentrate instead on the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *
**Traps for the unwary **
In reading McBrien’s text, it is clear that the author has mastered Catholic vocabulary and knows how to give the reader the impression of being rooted in the Catholic tradition. It is here, though, that a disturbing tendency emerges. What one often finds is a discussion of a traditional Catholic dogma cast in ambiguous terms by a skillful turn of phrase or a clever sleight of hand. Thus, the uncritical reader is given the false impression that McBrien’s discussion of the dogma is safely rooted within the parameters of Catholic orthodoxy without realizing that the author has frequently undercut the full meaning and authority of the dogma itself.
**Ecclesiology **A good example of this is McBrien’s discussion of ecclesiology. After reviewing a broad spectrum of contemporary ecclesiological models, ranging from those of Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar to those of Leonardo Boff and Rosemary Radford Ruether, McBrien is able to characterize the ecclesiology of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being “like von Balthasar’s, ‘from above’” (p. 715). The impression given is that the Catechism represents only one of many possible Catholic ecclesiological models. Beyond this, McBrien also notes that “in articulating the Church’s mission, the Catechism makes no mention of the broader social mission described in the council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” (p. 715). The inference is that the Catechism’s ecclesiology is not only one-sided (since it presents an ecclesiology “from above”), but it is also unfaithful to the actual teachings of Vatican II.
continue reading:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/06-96/7/7.html
Catholic theologian Robert Fastiggi has analyzed McBrien’s book Catholicism and shown how McBrien so cleverly, so subtly, distorts the Catholic faith in fundamental matters — thus betraying the Church, whose doctrine he is paid to preach, by engaging in what C. S. Lewis has likened to prostitution.
Fastiggi’s article in Pastoral and Homiletic Review, June 1996, begins thus:
**McBrien’s Catholicism is a dangerous book because
it cloaks dissent in the
**vocabulary of the language of Catholicism itself. ****
**The methodology of ambiguity: Richard McBrien’s revised Catholicism **
By Robert Fastiggi
If one were to judge a book by its (back) cover, the newly revised edition of Richard McBrien’s Catholicism would have all the appearances of a clear, competent and complete guide to the teachings of the Catholic Church. With praises from diverse authorities, ranging from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury to theologians from Fordham, Boston College and the Gregorianum, this impressive-looking volume seems to possess all the academic credentials needed to be considered the book on “Catholicism.”
As is well-known, though, we cannot judge a book by its cover, and the question that must be asked is whether Fr. McBrien has presented Catholicism as it really is or Catholicism as he would want it to be. Of course, credit should be given where credit is due. Any book of over 1200 pages surely deserves some recognition for the work that went into it, and if one is looking for a quick summary of the thought of theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng and Johannes Metz, McBrien’s book is certainly useful. However, if one is looking for a clear and faithful exposition of authentic Catholic teaching, one would be well-advised to steer clear of McBrien’s opus and concentrate instead on the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *
**Traps for the unwary **
In reading McBrien’s text, it is clear that the author has mastered Catholic vocabulary and knows how to give the reader the impression of being rooted in the Catholic tradition. It is here, though, that a disturbing tendency emerges. What one often finds is a discussion of a traditional Catholic dogma cast in ambiguous terms by a skillful turn of phrase or a clever sleight of hand. Thus, the uncritical reader is given the false impression that McBrien’s discussion of the dogma is safely rooted within the parameters of Catholic orthodoxy without realizing that the author has frequently undercut the full meaning and authority of the dogma itself.
**Ecclesiology **A good example of this is McBrien’s discussion of ecclesiology. After reviewing a broad spectrum of contemporary ecclesiological models, ranging from those of Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar to those of Leonardo Boff and Rosemary Radford Ruether, McBrien is able to characterize the ecclesiology of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as being “like von Balthasar’s, ‘from above’” (p. 715). The impression given is that the Catechism represents only one of many possible Catholic ecclesiological models. Beyond this, McBrien also notes that “in articulating the Church’s mission, the Catechism makes no mention of the broader social mission described in the council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” (p. 715). The inference is that the Catechism’s ecclesiology is not only one-sided (since it presents an ecclesiology “from above”), but it is also unfaithful to the actual teachings of Vatican II.
continue reading:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/06-96/7/7.html
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
Can anyone find a copy of the 2004 statement by the USCCB to not honour those who flagrantly oppose the Church’s teachings? I have the sneeking suspicion that the statement is only binding on the USCCB or individual bishops. Catholic Charities as an independant organization can invite anyone they want.
I would think also it would depend on the platform. The pontifical Science council has some athiests on it and they are frequently honoured and given a platform, not to promote atheism but to speak on science. Likewise Mayor Thomas Manino was given a platform to raise money for the poor (look at the list of charitable organizations that benefited
Also, (but I would need to look at the wording of the statement first) I am not familiar with Mayor Thomas Manino’s position on abortion and little of substance was produced by a google search of his name and the abortion issue. Does he actively and openly support abortion or is his position merely ‘it is the law’ whether I agree with it or not?
I would think also it would depend on the platform. The pontifical Science council has some athiests on it and they are frequently honoured and given a platform, not to promote atheism but to speak on science. Likewise Mayor Thomas Manino was given a platform to raise money for the poor (look at the list of charitable organizations that benefited
boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/10/menino_fires_back_at_critics_over_issues_of_faith_politics?page=1
Also, (but I would need to look at the wording of the statement first) I am not familiar with Mayor Thomas Manino’s position on abortion and little of substance was produced by a google search of his name and the abortion issue. Does he actively and openly support abortion or is his position merely ‘it is the law’ whether I agree with it or not?
F
fix
Guest
I am just surprised some have a tendency to minimize the authority of Rome?
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html
F
frommi
Guest
I’m not minimizing the ‘authority of Rome’…I do however think we’ve come to understand that authority in a very Western, corporate sense…by which the Pope is the CEO of the Universal Church and each individual Bishop is the manager of a territory.
I think there is a bigger problem with people who would minimize the teaching authority of the local ordinary, and substitute that with a desire to be ‘loyal to the Pope’. You can’t be loyal to the Pope by being disloyal to his brother bishops.
- Status