No.There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
We don’t listen to our Bishops because they are necessarily wiser or holier- though we certainly hope that God has granted them such gifts through their ordination. We listen to our Bishops and ultimately to the Pope because it is their role to teach and to govern. This is their office and that’s how the Church works.There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
Yes, the abuse scandal has called into question many peoples’ opinion of the Bishops. Rightfully so.There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
Just because the bishops and cardinals have lost moral credibility on the issue of abuse , doesn’t mean that all they say is untrustworthy. While it does certainly beg a few questions about judgement. When you consider that the bishops and above not only condoned abuse, but also engage in subterfuge about the issue to this day we must also consider their motives.There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
The Arizona Law clearly states that no one can be stopped unless they are suspected of a crime - other than the crime of illegal immigration.
Where? Here’s a copy of the Bill: azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I only read there where “lawful contact” is the criterion, not suspicion of a crime. Please clarify. thanks.
WatchingMedia;6652781:
What part of our lives do not involve Catholic faith and morals? The Catechism is full of references to obey the teaching of Bishops.The Bishop’s teaching authority is on Faith and Morals, not everything. Some things are their own opinions. Let the Catechism be your guide when in doubt.
We need obey the clergy in matters of dogmas and doctrines. The immigration agenda is one of Prudential Judgement in which many good answers and ideas can be given and chosen. I think the only way we can be sure we get this right is by protecting the immigrant, legal, or illegal from abuse. This may be a situation when once again, we must make a choice among the least of evilsThere have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
The Catechism is the ideal which contains specific direction and explanation of our beliefs written by naive men who thought the Bishops would read it.Where? Here’s a copy of the Bill: azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I only read there where “lawful contact” is the criterion, not suspicion of a crime. Please clarify. thanks.
What part of our lives do not involve Catholic faith and morals? The Catechism is full of references to obey the teaching of Bishops.
They are not politicians, economists, or really in any position to speak on the matter atleast with respect to the United States continued ability to provide for its citizens and function.There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?
It was altered- police officers felt that required them to check on people who asked them for directions and such.Where? Here’s a copy of the Bill: azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
I only read there where “lawful contact” is the criterion, not suspicion of a crime. Please clarify. thanks.
My sentiments exactly.To start with I hold our clergy in the highest esteem. I love the Catholic faith which is good beautiful and true. I do not relate the sinfulfullness and human frailties of one or several members of the clergy as representative of any priest or Nun,of any rank or office within the Church to all of them. That said, if I have found an individual, any person not just clergy, to lack personal integrity as I percieve it I will never trust a single thing they say. I taught my children, if you lie to me I will never trust you again.
Cardinal Mahony, one of the most outspoken critics of the Arizona law, has said things that make me question his fidelity to Catholic teaching on this issue. He called the law “Mean spirited”. The spirit of a law is the intent of it’s authors. Logic infers he is calling the authors of the law mean spirited. I suggest he is not qualified to know what is in their hearts. I believe the statement lacked Christian charity. These are things only God can judge.
The malfesance of some Bishop’s in the pedophilia scandal does not mean they all are guilty. While I don’t hold Cardinal Mahony responsible for the physical acts of pedophiles under his authority I do believe some Bishop’s were culpable and complicit in the abuse inflicted by evil men they recklessly put in contact with children that respected and were under these perps authority. I never ever under any circumstance judge an individual because of any group they fit into. It is unChristian and quite frankly the height of stupiity
A responsible person in a Bishop’s position, including outside the Church, is reckless in shuffling these type of dangerous predator. " priests" around. They have an obligation to understand the pathology of people who commit sex crimes crimes against children before they put known pedophiles in contact with children. The Church’s responsibility was to protect the children. How many of those abused kids became wretched evil sinners because of their abuse by a “holy man” I believe this because Christ said “Woe to those who cause’s one of these little one’s to sin”. How many parisioners have left the faith out of a feeling of betrayal? I know of several.
While I have the utmost respect for the sanctity of the confessional, this does not relieve a priest of any rank from reporting a crime he is aware of outside the confessional. It tears at the social fabric and has wounded the credibility of our Church, especially when it is so desperately needed. The predators should have been punished, in all justice.
As usual, in all areas of life, coverups lies and deceptions bring on worse results.
Now many Catholics doubt their Bishop’s. I question the judgement of Bishop’s who sometimes ,IMO, seem to talk more like politicians than Shepherds.
I think any Bishop who at minimum, knowingly put children in contact with “priests” who were pedophiles, need to step down from public positions and spend the rest of their time as active priests out of public positions.
I don’t mean to single out Cardinal Mahony but I found his wording the most divisive and unproductive of anything I have ever heard from a clergy man. I emailed his office 10 days ago about his words and how I out of place I found them to be. I had hoped he , or his staff, would either tell me that I was correct, or that I was wrong and then use it as a teaching moment for a member of the flock( Me). Alas I recieved no reply and no longer expect one.
Several years ago, Pope Benedict XVI, a man I percieve to be a model of sanctity, integrity, and holiness, said that all nations have a right to regulate their borders and immigration.
I firmly believe that all people are responsible for what they say and do. This is especially true of people in authority. When a person is negligent or reckless or lies or exagerates it demeans their credibilty, even a Bishop,
I always believed these pedophiles were shuffled around partly because of a shortage of priest’s. Does anyone have a more informed view? I am curious.
And I also find the use of the use of the term “undocumented worker” by many clergy. positively Orwellian. They don’t have documents because they emigrated into the US illegaly. And do all illegal immigrants have jobs?
The rhetoric of some Bishops leaves out talk of the biblical responsibilty of an immigrant. I feel that some of this rhetoric comes straight from Saul Alinskys “rules for radicals” The main tactic is to personalize attacks on your political opponents and demonize him. I don’t know Cardinal Mahony’s intent with his comment but I do worry about it.
With Nancy Pelosi telling clergy men to preach on immigration reform, I believe we are seeing an attempt by gov. officials to influence the Church, and other denominations and religions. The “wall of separation” between Church and State was erected to protect the Church from government. Our Church leaders need to be aware of this attempt. I fear they may go along when they agree with gov thinking they will be able to go it alone when they disagree. As my liberal friends often say “it’s a slippery slope.”
Naive men? Wow. Well…as it’s promulgated by the Pope authoritatively, I guess we’re stuck with naive men presenting authentic Catholic doctrine.The Catechism is the ideal which contains specific direction and explanation of our beliefs written by naive men who thought the Bishops would read it.
Digger, It seems the posters reference to naivetee is in reference to thinking the Bishop’s would read it. I’ve read a lot of your posts and you are a intelligent person. If the poster truly thought the writers and or the Pope were naive in the way he said, that does not alone mean he thinks they were naive in authorship of the catechism. To represent his statement as saying that is unfair on your part. I think you are better than that.Naive men? Wow. Well…as it’s promulgated by the Pope authoritatively, I guess we’re stuck with naive men presenting authentic Catholic doctrine.
I don’t judge the Bishop’s or anyone else’s soul or heart. I do judge people’s words and deeds. Any Bishop, or any other person, who put a known or suspected pedophile in contact with more children is morally culpable for that predators actions. I hold Catholic clergy to a higher standard, because for the most part they have more native intelligence and education than most people. Also they should be more attuned to the barbaric side of human nature, as they often work with the pooresr of people who are victims of that barbarism in disproportionate numbers. I also believe priests are subject to greater temptation than lay men. The enemy would prefer the soul of one of God’s holy priests than a hundred men like me.No.
The reason people tell you to listen to the bishops is that they possess teaching authority. Their personal failings in regard to the sex abuse scandal may speak volumes about their personal sanctification, but don’t really say anything about their ability to teach. A number of the bishops covered up sexual abuse, or failed to report it, or were too lax in punishing it, etc. No doubt about it. But that’s not even remotely connected to whether they are accurately representing Catholic teachings in the context of immigration.
Your logic jumps from “some bishops mishandled the sex abuse crisis” to “all bishops mishandled the sex abuse crisis” to “mishandling the sex abuse crisis is a failure of wisdom, not courage,” to “therefore, the bishops have no more wisdom than I do, regardless of the context.” I’ll safely venture that the hierarchy does have more wisdom than you, particularly if you take the hierarchy in toto, not just the handful of bishops you read about in the papers.
And besides that, they remain bishops, all of them. They don’t suddenly lose the authority given to them by God because you don’t like how they exercised (or failed to exercise) that authority. Who put *you *in judgment of them? That’s poorly formed logic, and an easy route into grave sin. After all, if their response to the sex abuse scandal means you don’t have to listen to them on immigration, the same logic would justify not listening to them on birth control, abortion, just war, homosexuality, you name it.
I’m not saying you can never disagree with a bishop on anything. Certainly, obviously, you can. But I am saying that the sort of out-of-hand dismissal to follow your political views rather than the teachings of the Church is incredibly dangerous to your eternal soul.
Finally, if you don’t listen to your own bishop, at least listen to the teaching of the Church, found in the catechism and elsewhere. Or will you not submit to that authority, either?
I’m honestly wondering what he meant.Digger, It seems the posters reference to naivetee is in reference to thinking the Bishop’s would read it. I’ve read a lot of your posts and you are a intelligent person. If the poster truly thought the writers and or the Pope were naive in the way he said, that does not alone mean he thinks they were naive in authorship of the catechism. To represent his statement as saying that is unfair on your part. I think you are better than that.
You are probably well informed on many subjects, but are like me probably naive on some other subjects.
Also I think the poster is well aware that most Bishop’s have read the catechism, maybe even memorized it. I believe he was being a more rhetorical than literal in his statement. But you probably are aware of that.
No question. Many bishops acted badly on this issue: many will be judged harshly by God for it. Some will almost certainly suffer for eternity in Hell for their warped priorities and moral cowardice. It’s a tragedy.I don’t judge the Bishop’s or anyone else’s soul or heart. I do judge people’s words and deeds. Any Bishop, or any other person, who put a known or suspected pedophile in contact with more children is morally culpable for that predators actions.
Although those are fine reasons to hold them to a higher standard, there’s a more important one: they’re called by God to be His shepherds. He promises in the OT, “I will put shepherds over you,” and He did. He put them there, not us. It’s a reason to both respect them, and to fear for them, since God will expect much from them (Luke 12:48).I hold Catholic clergy to a higher standard, because for the most part they have more native intelligence and education than most people.
I’m not sure about the lack of charity you speak of, other than Cardinal Mahony’s comments. Is it beyond just him? But besides that, to suggest that a bishop doesn’t have a right (and indeed, a moral responsibility) to make judgments about individuals and their intent as well as their conduct would be to handicap their ability to serve as shepherds. They **need **to say “this is wrong, and you’re knowingly committing an evil act promoting it.” If this was an issue you were more disposed to care about (take a graver evil, like abortion, for example), I think you’d recognize that your argument is wrong.The words of some Bishops have been judgemental about the Arizona laws authors. What qualifies them to do so? They have a perfect right to speak against any law, but they have an obligation to do so respectfully while treating those they disagree with with dignity.
Because he’s been called by God. He doesn’t earn our respect by being smart or even wise. There are plenty of men who are smart and wise without clerical office. If our basis for respecting them are those, then bishops aren’t entitled to any special respect, except by coincidence (that is, if they happen to be smart and wise). But **God **put them there. Saying we get to disrespect God’s chosen authorities because they don’t act like we think they should is arrogant and sinful.If a Bishop treats some people disrespectfully why should anyone respect him?
In those instances a bishop behaves outside of the realm of Catholicism: promotes something non-Catholic, acts in an un-Catholic manner, etc., we’re not bound to obey them (obviously). We’re not bound to *trust *them, in the sense I understand you to mean. I’ll openly say that Cardinal Law quite possibly lied under oath. I don’t trust much of what he had to say, and Phil Lawler in The Faithful Departed takes him to task on specific issues. And in generally, we’re not *bound *to obey them on prudential judgments, unless there are obedience issues related to direct orders.Do you think that it is incumbent on a Catholic to trust or obey a Bishop who acts far outside the realm of Christian charity in his comments?
I don’t really know if this is true. If you look at the sex abuse cases in question, in a great number of them, the police were aware and did nothing. Have you seen a single cop pay any price whatsoever for it? I haven’t. But I did see Cardinal Law go from running one of the largest and most powerful archdioceses on Earth to being the pastor of a single church in Rome. It’s like making a police chief a dogcatcher. Sure, he’s still got a job, but if you can’t call that a demotion, what *would *be?Bishops are human and subject to the same mistakes in judgement as all other men. As to not liking the way they exercised their office, some were reckless and or malfeasant. They were not held accountable, and did not suffer severe consequence for such terrible lack of responsibility. Police Officers are held to a higher standard by their government entities than some Bishops who represent Christ on earth.
Exactly. And that’s my point. The minority of bad bishops undermine their own moral credibility. But even here, Cardinal Law was or is a moral coward, but has an intelligent and deep understanding of Catholicism. You might as well say, “I know a few scientists who cheated on their spouses, so I’m not gonna believe any scientists who tell me about General Relativity.” Am I misunderstanding what he’s saying?All that said the great majority of our priests and Bishops represent Christ on earth in the noblest terms. Certainy better than I do.
Here’s a site where you would probably feel right at home:There have been a number of posters on the immigration issue who say we must listen to the teaching authority of the Bishops on this topic, because they are wiser, smarter, holier, etc. But the abuse scandal has shown me that the hierarchy has no more wisdom than I do. That’s how I can reject the position of the Bishops on immigration, besides my own moral analysis.
Anyone else feel the same?