Please write to the editor of the LA diocese newspaper Tidings. This is outrageous!

[fix]

frommi:

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.

That is true, however, the point of this discussion is that one who obeys Rome, rather than a priest or bishop who is dissenting from Rome, is not a cafeteria catholic.

 

[frommi]

fix:

That is true, however, the point of this discussion is that one who obeys Rome, rather than a priest or bishop who is dissenting from Rome, is not a cafeteria catholic.

I disagree with that. Many people who claim to be obeying Rome simply are not doing so. “Rome” speaks about many things that people do not subscribe to. Rome speaks about the environment, Rome speaks out about war, etc.

What you are really talking about is listening to Rome on the issues of abortion, birth control, and the issues surrounding homosexuality.

If you are going to say you “follow the teaching of the Roman pontiff”, then you would have to indeed do that. Following a handful of teachings whole heartedly and ignoring others if the very definiton of cafeteria catholicism.

 

[Confiteor]

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

This author’s impression is one that I share; this is what I was referring to when I mentioned the use of “studied ambiguity.” Fr. McBrien is this sort --he “dissents” but it is coated in such a way that it can be mistaken for something legitimate.

 

[Confiteor]

st.jerome:

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.

There is much more to being faithful to the Church than going to Mass and confession as the Catechism details. (Would that it were so easy!)

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.

You may well be right; this is a case where his support of a particular politician’s being honored seems inappropriate (and may imply where he stands on doctrinal issues, but there is another iteration there). As I said before, the bottom line for me is he is WRONG to support said politician (the bishops covered this scenario in their meeting and the resultant document). I don’t think the LA diocese should give him a platform to do so. Individuals like Fr. McBrien are too sly to ever come out and say they support abortion–highly unlikely anyway–but he is out there misleading folks in a very public way. At some point, a good bishop should take a closer look at what he is promoting.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Confiteor:

Individuals like Fr. McBrien are too sly to ever come out and say they support abortion–highly unlikely anyway–but he is out there misleading folks in a very public way. At some point, a good bishop should take a closer look at what he is promoting.

Which is … what, exactly?

As I read the article, he’s promoting the right of Catholic Charities to invite a Catholic politician to speak on matters in which the politician is not only fully aligned with the Church’s teaching but may even go above and beyond.

The fact that the politician may have other views that are in direct conflict with the Church (I assume he does, but I haven’t seen anything that actually supports that) is arguably irrelevant since he’s not talking about them.

McBrien’s arguing. So’s the other side. It’s called a “debate.”

One does not win a debate by muzzling one’s opponents. When you do that, it’s not a debate anymore.

I don’t know McBrien. He may be a bad, bad man. I certainly see nothing that suggests he supports abortion, and neither do you. The point that McBrien raises in this article is that the fact that a Catholic politician supports abortion shouldn’t necessarily preclude him from being honoured for other positions that he takes that are manifestations of what Christ called us to do.

If Catholic Charites were honoring him for, I don’t know, getting more federal funds for abortion, that would be very wrong.

McBrien is debating a position that I think is legitimately debatable. So, apparently, do the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles and the Provost of Notre Dame University. You guys don’t want to come out and say, “No, he is not allowed to voice these opinions at all, and neither is any other Catholic.”

Instead, we get this business about how “sly” he is and what a sneaky, misleading man he is. I don’t know him. I just read what he wrote.

Answer me this: In view, can American Catholics debate the issue of whether Catholic Charities should have honoured the Mayor of Boston at its dinner? If we are not allowed to debate the issue, why not?

If we are allowed to debate the issue, what precisely is wrong with the way in which McBrien has chosen to do so other than the fact that it is, in some vague and unspecified way, “inappropriate”?

 

[Confiteor]

Penny Plain:

I’m just trying to understand your position. You’d stop him from speaking entirely, if you could?

Penny, he is representing the Church in a diocesan paper. Not the best place for dissenting clergy in general. In this case, his statement flies in the face of the bishops’ own agreement. So I maintain that he is out of line. If he wants to criticize the action taken in Boston privately, that may be his prerogative (he’d still be wrong!). But in the paper to the diocese, it is really, really out of place. And he is well known for his dissenting opinions, so I would prefer to have a more faithful priest representing the faith on ABC, CBS, etc. I hope that is clearer for you; I don’t know any better way to explain it.

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?

Here it depends what you mean…I think we who are Penny Plain and Confiteor can say: “Good job on the statement, Bishops.” or " Wish you had gone a little further" or “What?” among ourselves… But I have no position in the Church that would lead people to think I was making a pronouncement of any weight. People take McBrien more seriously and that’s a problem.

No, it isn’t like female ordination at all. The USCCB document itself has NO teaching authority (we should already know and live the doctrine behind it), but for those bishops who were signatories to it, they should be following its prescription.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Since I am from Massachusetts, I have followed the story about Mayor Menino and the Catholic Charities Dinner pretty closely. Menino is a Catholic politician who supports abortion and same-sex marriage. He has also criticized the Church on many occassions in which I felt he was mean-spirited and unjustified.

But I was even more disturbed by what he actually said to those who attended the Catholic Charities Dinner (bold parts are my emphasis):

Remarks of Mayor Thomas M. Menino
**Greater Boston Catholic Charities Christmas Gala **
December 9, 2005

As Mayor of this great city, it is my privilege and responsibility to look out for the welfare of all who live here. Keeping people safe and educated, protecting their jobs, and, if they hit hard times, making sure they have what they need to live whole and healthy lives. The homeless and the unemployed, and the elderly, and the sick – these people expect the city to help them. And my job is to make sure that happens.

But in addition to being a public official, I am a Catholic. And I love my Church as much as I love my city. Tonight, I have the special opportunity to recognize that doing the mayor’s work sometime means doing the work of mercy. Mercy, too, can be a city function. In all humility, I want to tell you I’m never far from thinking of what the nuns taught me when they made memorize the 7 Corporal Works of Mercy. Do you remember them?

• To feed the hungry;
• To give drink to the thirsty;
• To clothe the naked;
• To provide shelter for the unsheltered;
• To visit the sick;
• To ransom the captive;
• And to bury the dead.

Of course you remember the Corporal Works of Mercy. What else defines the great organization of Catholic Charities, if not that?

I don’t wear my piety on my sleeve. In fact, I don’t often talk about my faith. I am not one of those politicians who goes around bringing God into public life, as if God needs to be mentioned in speeches or be put up on courtroom walls. And frankly, a lot of political God talk makes me a little uneasy.

But tonight, Catholic Charities, with this honor, gives me the occasion to publicly make the link between my private faith and my public duty. So yes, tonight is a rare public event outside of my parish church in which it is appropriate for me to say quite simply – I believe in Jesus Christ. And what moves me most about being a Christian is what Jesus taught us about how to be religious. He did not give priority to piety. He didn’t make holiness the big thing. And he did not tell us to go around talking up God, either.

continued

 

[ElizabethAnne]

continued from above

What Jesus said, and what he showed with his life, was that the way to follow him was to take care of people. He told us in the Gospel of Matthew. The hungry, the naked, the homeless, the sick, and yes the imprisoned. When we feed them, clothe them, shelter them, take care of them, visit them – then we have honored the Lord the way he asked us to. “Truly, when you did to one of these least of my brethren, you did it to me.”

How much clearer could the Lord have made it? Actually, the Corporal Works of Mercy come right from him. Right from that passage in the Gospel.

As a mayor, my job is to help the city and all its people thrive. But I know, and you know, that hard times are always with some of us. How the unlucky ones or the troubled ones, the naked, the poor, the lost – how they get treated tells us everything we need to know about both our politics and religion.

But I don’t need to tell you any of this. Catholic Charities is the heart and soul of the Catholic faith. Because you are already doing exactly what Jesus said the faith is all about. You feed the hungry. You clothe the naked. You help people to stay alive. And saving lives is what it’s all about. Life, as Jesus said, to the full. For everybody.

I said before “in all humility” and I mean that. The honor you are paying me tonight’s fills me with humility. You are my fellow Catholics and you are my fellow citizens of Boston. I recognize faces here that make it clear to me how very much help I get in doing my job. And how very much help Boston gets from you special people. Frankly, I recognize good people here who do a lot more than I do. So, yes, I feel humility.

But also – and maybe this is my confession, Father – I’m feeling pride. Pride tonight, especially in being a Catholic. Being a Boston Catholic. Being a Boston Catholic with you.

I know what it cost you to be here tonight – and I don’t just mean the money. And I want you to know I appreciate it. You have honored a guy who, mainly, is just trying to do the job the people elected him to do. But also a guy who knows what a privilege this job is. My way of being a public servant, yes. But my way also – though I rarely say so – of being a man of faith. The Corporal Works of Mercy. The message of the Gospel. The mission of Catholic Charities. It all comes together tonight.

Who are we, but a bunch of people who have learned, one way or another, what another Boston Catholic, our own John Kennedy, told us in his inaugural address 45 years ago next month, that “here on Earth, God’s work must truly be our own.” Thank you.

Since when did Jesus not make holiness “a big thing”?

 

[Penny_Plain]

Penny, he is representing the Church in a diocesan paper. Not the best place for dissenting clergy in general.

Does “not the best place” mean the same as “he should under no circumstances be there?”

From what, exactly, is he dissenting? If something is not authoritative, aren’t all Catholics allowed to disagree with it and, for that matter, discuss their disagreements publicly? That’s why I contrasted this with women’s ordination, which we are not to discuss.

In this case, his statement flies in the face of the bishops’ own agreement. So I maintain that he is out of line.

Are you sure McBrien and Catholic Charities are bound by the bishops’ agreement? Do you really believe that priests are not to publicly disagree with ANYTHING the USCCB says?

If he wants to criticize the action taken in Boston privately, that may be his prerogative (he’d still be wrong!).

See, that’s a debate. He says he’s right; you say he’s wrong. Both opinions go out to the faithful, and they get to decide because, as you seem to admit, we have the prerogative to disagree with the USCCB if we want to.

But in the paper to the diocese, it is really, really out of place.

It’s out of place to debate the scope and application of the USCCB’s decisions in a Catholic paper? Wow. You’re tough. Where should we, the faithful, discuss these things? On the opinion page of the Boston Globe?

And he is well known for his dissenting opinions, so I would prefer to have a more faithful priest representing the faith on ABC, CBS, etc.

Surely you’d at least admit that what you “prefer” may not be the standard for deciding whether McBrien should be allowed to continue publishing in the Catholic paper?

So he’s well-known for his dissenting opinions. People seem to rail about them a lot here (I looked around), but most of them seem to be on theological questions that are a tad, well, obscure. Is this a dissenting opinion that should be suppressed?

You seem to think so. The Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, not so much. Who wins?

 

[koda]

I’m starting to feel like I’m on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.

 

[Confiteor]

Penny Plain:

Does “not the best place” mean the same as “he should under no circumstances be there?”

From what, exactly, is he dissenting? If something is not authoritative, aren’t all Catholics allowed to disagree with it and, for that matter, discuss their disagreements publicly? That’s why I contrasted this with women’s ordination, which we are not to discuss.

Are you sure McBrien and Catholic Charities are bound by the bishops’ agreement? Do you really believe that priests are not to publicly disagree with ANYTHING the USCCB says?

See, that’s a debate. He says he’s right; you say he’s wrong. Both opinions go out to the faithful, and they get to decide because, as you seem to admit, we have the prerogative to disagree with the USCCB if we want to.

It’s out of place to debate the scope and application of the USCCB’s decisions in a Catholic paper? Wow. You’re tough. Where should we, the faithful, discuss these things? On the opinion page of the Boston Globe?

Surely you’d at least admit that what you “prefer” may not be the standard for deciding whether McBrien should be allowed to continue publishing in the Catholic paper?

So he’s well-known for his dissenting opinions. People seem to rail about them a lot here (I looked around), but most of them seem to be on theological questions that are a tad, well, obscure. Is this a dissenting opinion that should be suppressed?

You seem to think so. The Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, not so much. Who wins?

“Troll” you are…I can only recommend that you read the document in which the bishops stated their “policy” (and of course, it applies to Catholic Charities as a Catholic institution). Yes, it is a bad idea to grant a dissenting priest a column in a diocesan newpaper. If you read a bit more of Fr. McBrien, you’ll get a handle on him. i.e. Do a little homework of your own, and you’ll find the answers to your questions. I’m sorry, but this is pretty straightforward and I haven’t any more time to devote to it.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Confiteor:

Do a little homework of your own, and you’ll find the answers to your questions. I’m sorry, but this is pretty straightforward and I haven’t any more time to devote to it.

I’ll take that as a surrender…

See you around.

 

[EtienneGilson]

Confiteor:

I can only recommend that you read the document in which the bishops stated their “policy” (and of course, it applies to Catholic Charities as a Catholic institution).

Did I miss something but I asked earlier if anyone could point me in the right direction for this document? I checked the USCCB website but was unable to locate it.

I think many questions would be answered if we could actually look at the document about not honouring politicians with outspoken views which contrast with Catholic morals.

 

[koda]

What about giving an award to a pro-life politician who cuts assisted housing and medical so that poor families have to live on the street and go without medical care? How would everyone feel if he got the award? I ask because I get the feeling that anything is okay as long as you say you are pro-life.

 

[TheRaiders]

I will probably get angry at many of Fr. McBrien’s columns, but this one I am not angry about. He is right in saying that some people are putting abortion ahead of anyhting and everything when deciding on issues. Catholic Charities is fulfiling one of Jesus’ most important comandments through their service. While abortion goes against God completly, can’t we serve side by side with groups that aren’t so against it as us? The more we mingle with them that more we will change their hearts to that of orthodoxy. We must pray for their change of hearts, but not boycott a dinner meant to celebrate service to the homeless just because the man is not completly orthodox.
If I were to boycott this dinner, it would be because I think the Bible is pretty clear on not trumpeting our own good deeds. The mayor, if he has done good deeds, has now been given a very earthly award, and probably lost some reward in heaven. The whole dinner itself might be wrong.
Patrick

 

[TheRaiders]

Not only is a he trumpeting his own good works and loosing his reward in heaven, the mayor betrays himself with horrible theology. He puts down holiness, piety, bringing God into public life, and tries to make people feel inferior to him for trying to attain these things. The mayor makes me sick. Fr. McBrien had a point though, as do other posters, in saying that abortion should not be the end-all in our interactions with people. If we do this we become minimalists like the Protestants.
Patrick

 

[TheRaiders]

I forgot, the mayor also put down “talking up God”. While I like the fact that he is Catholic and is involved in charities, I can see why people would be wary of giving him a Catholic reward. Fr. McBrien has a point though, that orthodoxy can be put aside for certain events that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Coming together as Catholics for an event can only produce good fruits.

 

[Confiteor]

EtienneGilson:

Did I miss something but I asked earlier if anyone could point me in the right direction for this document? I checked the USCCB website but was unable to locate it.

I think many questions would be answered if we could actually look at the document about not honouring politicians with outspoken views which contrast with Catholic morals.

It was posted a while back…here it is again:
“You can read this document here:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/cathol...ticallife.shtml”

 

[EtienneGilson]

Thank you Confiteor.

The pertinent passage seems to be:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

[usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml)

I do not see how the award and the invite to the Mayor seem to imply support for abortion. Catholic Charities has no involvement in abortion but rather helping the poor. It would not be appropriate to invite him to a pro-life rally, but it is a stretch to say that inviting him constitutes “support for their actions” regarding abortion. It does say something about supporting his actions regarding aiding the poor.

 

[frommi]

koda:

What about giving an award to a pro-life politician who cuts assisted housing and medical so that poor families have to live on the street and go without medical care? How would everyone feel if he got the award? I ask because I get the feeling that anything is okay as long as you say you are pro-life.

Well, you see that would be the type of “Pro-Life” most people practice…they are “Pro-Life” from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. Then it simply doesn’t matter anymore to many of them (especially the politicians).