" The Dolan Decree - New York archbishop lays down the law on SAME-SEX Marriages "

[ANNE_2]

Why don’t you want people to talk to their own Bishop ? This should never be discouraged.
What is underlying - ie really trying to protect (your goal) ?

Bishops are not immune from sin or error either. After consideration, the Bishop will make the final decision for his own Diocese.
(Anything that violates Church teaching should be reported to the Vatican.)

If the Bishop chooses not to teach or set an example for his own people that is his final choice for which he will be held responsible - one way or another.
Even as to whether to uphold Canon 915.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

If the Parish Pastor, or Parish Secretary or other Church employees in any State that issues homosexual marriage licenses does not know about any Decree from their own Bishop, the job was not done well enough - and the Bishop needs to know, since he is not a mind-reader.
Further, it takes the pressure off the Priests and employees when it is very clear to all those in a Diocese that the Bishop has laid down the law, and that no one in his Diocese can disobey.

In addition, by publishing on his Diocese web site, if a Priest or Employee purposely disobeys, he/she can be reported to the Bishop because people will know about the Bishop’s Decree. so it can be helpful to the Bishop as well.

It’s all part of the teaching process.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Why don’t you want people to talk to their own Bishop ? This should never be discouraged.
What is underlying - ie really trying to protect (your goal) ?

This is an issue that does not effect the average parishioner. So the question is, “What are you looking for by contacting the bishop?” Do you really think the local priests are going to allow their property to be knowingly used to play any role in a gay marriage or civil union?

Bishops are not immune from sin or error either. After consideration, the Bishop will make the final decision for his own Diocese.
(Anything that violates Church teaching should be reported to the Vatican.)

And if the bishop doesn’t publicly issue a letter that means nothing.

If the Parish Pastor, or Parish Secretary or other Church employees in any State that issues homosexual marriage licenses does not know about any Decree from their own Bishop, the job was not done well enough - and the Bishop needs to know, since he is not a mind-reader.

Once again, who appointed anyone to be the watchdogs on house keeping matters for the diocese? If something were to happen, obviously the bishop should be notified. However, assuming the worst will happen is quite uncharitable.

Further, it takes the pressure off the Priests and employees when it is very clear to all those in a Diocese that the Bishop has laid down the law, and that no one in his Diocese can disobey.

If a letter has already gone out then priests and proper employees are aware of it. And even if it hasn’t I doubt they’d automatically think there’s nothing wrong with lending property to such events.

In addition, by publishing on his Diocese web site, if a Priest or Employee purposely disobeys, he/she can be reported to the Bishop because people will know about the Bishop’s Decree. so it can be helpful to the Bishop as well.

If it happened it would be reported to the bishop anyways. A “decree” is not necessarily needed to take action against a priest who knowingly allowed such a thing.

It’s all part of the teaching process.

No, it sounds like its part of fostering a climate of mistrust. If a bishop chooses to issue such a decree via internal memo that’s his choice and there’s no reason or right to demand otherwise from him.

 

[Ender]

I was at a meeting where someone asked the bishop why he did not write this for the public and his answer was very simple. Those who need to know, now know. It’s in the memo.

Those who most need to know most assuredly … don’t.

*On the issue of marriage, the report, compiled by the Public Religion Research Institute using past polls and studies, showed “nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). *

religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/

He turned around and left the room.

I guess this would explain why Catholics are so badly catechized on this issue.

Ender

 

[Ender]

This is an issue that does not effect the average parishioner.

On the narrow issue of using Catholic facilities to celebrate/sanctify/acknowledge gay unions, you are probably right, but the real issue is not nearly so narrow. The true concern is the level of support for such arrangements among Catholics, and the failure to take all possible opportunities to reinforce Church teaching on the subject surely accounts for the astonishingly high percentage of Catholics who have no problem accepting positions directly counter to that teaching.

Once again, who appointed anyone to be the watchdogs on house keeping matters for the diocese?

House keeping? Is that how you see the problem where three quarters of all Catholics support either gay marriage or civil unions? This was an opportunity for a teaching moment but is now just another opportunity squandered.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

On the narrow issue of using Catholic facilities to celebrate/sanctify/acknowledge gay unions, you are probably right, but the real issue is not nearly so narrow. The true concern is the level of support for such arrangements among Catholics, and the failure to take all possible opportunities to reinforce Church teaching on the subject surely accounts for the astonishingly high percentage of Catholics who have no problem accepting positions directly counter to that teaching.

I don’t think many Catholics are unaware of the Church’s position on this. All publicly issuing such a decree would do is “inform” what the teaching is yet most already know that and reject it.

House keeping? Is that how you see the problem where three quarters of all Catholics support either gay marriage or civil unions? This was an opportunity for a teaching moment but is now just another opportunity squandered.

A letter that lays out proper use of church property and appropriate/inappropriate clerical action is indeed a housekeeping matter.

 

[JReducation]

In general I think this is where (at least) American Catholics tend to forget that the Church is not formed on democratic principles. It’s not a democracy, a republic.

When we feel upset or annoyed with our public officials we are free and even encouraged to make our voices known.

Sometimes we may take that approach and try to apply it to our Church leaders as well, forgetting that it’s not the same.

I remember just recently studying some of the late 19th and early 20th century popes. I forget which one is which but I know some of them were cautious in their support of democracy, others down right oppose saying it’s “not right” or something along that line.

I know as an American that made my eyebrows shoot up. But again I was reminded that the Church isn’t America nor is She founded on many of the principles that America is… Nor does she deal with her people in the way that I just had assumed she did.

It’s one of those reminders that keep showing up for me.

It’s important to remember that the government and infrastructure of the Church is neither American, German, Chinese or Colombian. It is purely Catholic. This is the way that the Church does business. The Chinese would like to designate who will be bishop. The Martians would like to own Church property. Americans would like to oversee the bishop as they oversee their elected officials. And every culture would like to see its system at work in the Church. That’s not reality. The Church has her system and her infrastructure.

Those who most need to know most assuredly … don’t.

I think anyone with a TV, Internet, newspaper, or radio knows the Catholic position of same-sex unions. If the world did not know, there would not be so much hostility toward the Catholic Church on this issue.

The point that the bishop was making was about policy regarding Church property, the participation of the clergy in such celebrations and the use of Church resources. The people who need to know those policies are those who manage the property, the resources and the clergy and religious who may be invited to participate in such celebrations. He put the policy into a memo that went to everyone who needed to know. From that point forward, if anyone violates the policy and he finds out about it, there are going to be serious problems and consequences. What more can we ask for?

*On the issue of marriage, the report, compiled by the Public Religion Research Institute using past polls and studies, showed “nearly three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). *

The fact that these people favor it is not going to change with a memo that says that you can’t use Catholic facilities, resources and clergy to celebrate these unions.

religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/
I guess this would explain why Catholics are so badly catechized on this issue.

Ender

Just because you teach someone something does mean automatic assent. Don’t fool yourself. The human mind does not function that way. You threaten with the fires of hell and still have people who will say, “I don’t believe it, because it does not feel right to me.” Only grace and time can change that. But this has nothing to do with the use of Church property, personnel and resources.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

Several issues here i.m.o, that are separate, but are popping up as part of the conversation:

(1) Oversight, discipline of priests by their bishops (for unapproved activity related to this issue) – i.e., the matter of the decree itself.

I agree with JR and with N.England Priest on this: This is a matter for clergy, not laity: (information, disclosures, consequences). I don’t think “the public” (meaning in this case, the laity) has a “right to know” the incidents, the penalties, etc., let alone should such information be routinely “published” in church bulletins or other material available to laity.

(2)The fact of laity “rejection of Church doctrine” (on SSM and SSU’s), as in this quote:

I don’t think many Catholics are unaware of the Church’s position on this. All publicly issuing such a decree would do is “inform” what the teaching is yet most already know that and reject it.

(3) Impression of occasional clerical “rejection of Church doctrine” (on SSM and SSU’s) in isolated cases. It is often laity who is perceiving this, correctly or incorrectly. (Often, this is a matter of style of communication, as opposed to a true clerical rejection; an ambiguous statement is made by Priest X at Parish Y.) IOW, certain clergy appear to support SSM and SSU’s, through their language and behavior (not including any actual illicit performing of ceremonies!)

Part A:
However (2) and (3), i.m.o, relate much more to the bigger, gigantic, ever-present and insufficiently addressed problem of deficient lay catechesis in the Church. IOW, here is what the average lay Catholic is confused about:

~That pastoral policy is not Church doctrine, nor does it indicate a departure from Church doctrine (on the part of the pastor).

~That a homily is not a doctrine.

~That informal theology-in-progress (whether it’s “new theories” about sexuality or direct challenges to the doctrine on human nature and soul within human nature) is not equivalent to official doctrine, and thus not approved. Lay and reliigous theologians can create all kinds of new intellectual structures – some with innocent intentions, some with less innocent intentions, but theory is not doctrine.

~That, for both clergy and laity, the moral theology of the Church (including but not limited to marriage, sexuality, family, and personhood) consists of moral absolutes, not subject to changing political seasons or societal fads.

~What a Catholic conscience does and does not mean.

~That all Church doctrine can be modified by any individual Catholic’s opinion of that doctrine, including whether that doctrine is subjectively perceived as “logical,” “reasonable,” “sensible,” etc.

~What Faithful Citizenship does direct the practicing Catholic to consider about civil issues and how those pertain to influence on society, and on elections.

~What influence any religion is allowed to have over public affairs, in the marketplace of ideas.

~Why it is critical for Catholics to understand that fidelity is not a schizophrenic exercise: a set of beliefs for “Church”; a set of different/opposing beliefs for Catholics’ presence in secular society.

~How influence is not “forcing” a religious viewpoint on a secular society.

~How exercising influence, as a Catholic, is not the equivalent of a “theocracy.”

Part B:
Clergy may be just as aware of these indicators of gigantic catechetical ignorance among the laity. However, those among the laity who were/are sufficiently catechized seem to be the only segment of the Church registering genuine alarm about these underlying misunderstandings. (So, when Priest X says in his homily, in Parish Y, on Sunday, something pastoral about ministering to homosexuals, 75% of lay Catholics conclude,

“Father says homosexual behavior is fine.” (He didn’t say that.)
“Father = all clergy = “The Church”
“Father would never say anything not approved by the Holy See.”
“Rome has ‘changed its mind’ about homosexual behavior.” (Cf. Pope BXVI’s statement about condoms lifted out of context from a book, distorted by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.)

Solution to these Errors = better catechesis, preferably in the catechetical Emergency Room, with surgery scheduled Yesterday.

So when some lay people seem, from the clergy’s legitimate point of view, to be overreacting, it is most likely that they’re not reacting to a single incident or a single perception or misperception, but to the cumulative doctrinal ignorance on the part of modern laity --not relative to individual doctrines – but relative to the moral authority of the magisterium and the response required of the faithful Catholic. To the definitively modernist Catholic, the Church does not authoritatively comment on society and define the moral realm; rather it’s quite the opposite: The Church and her teachings are ‘modified’ by secular assumptions, which the laity have been much better “taught” in than in the truths of Catholicism. The World is the new Absolute; the Church is the new Relative.

 

[Melchior_1]

It is not up to the laymen to decide who can/can’t receive Communion, or who should be excommunicated. That is something for clergy (or if you’re consecrated religious the person whose in charge of such things) to consider,

We have one religious and one priest in this thread both saying this. They’re both within the hierarchy of the Church, in two different facets (one diocesan, one religious). They’re both saying exactly the same thing. Both have dealt with these issues before, have worked with people who have dealt with these issues. They both have seen communications from other clergy, they’ve seen how the process goes.

Meanwhile, us laymen post on a message board and pontificate about our interpretations of canon law.

My money is on the NewEnglandPriest and Brother JR being correct.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Moderator Notice

Negative and rude comments toward clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

• Vatican II
• Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
• Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
• Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
• Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
• Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
• Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.

Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think many Catholics are unaware of the Church’s position on this. All publicly issuing such a decree would do is “inform” what the teaching is yet most already know that and reject it.

It is one thing to inform Catholics about what their faith teaches, it is quite another to act as if the teaching mattered. In a recent article in First Things, Archbishop Chaput wrote - and although it was directed specifically at the young it applies to Catholics in general *… they need the kind of leadership and the kind of education that radiates confidence in the Word of God; fidelity to the Catholic faith; and a missionary zeal to make all things new in Jesus Christ—including the public square. *

That is precisely what is lacking now and if the bishops show insufficient zeal in proclaiming the doctrines of the Church - and acting on them - we should not be surprised that the laity fails to take them seriously either.

A letter that lays out proper use of church property and appropriate/inappropriate clerical action is indeed a housekeeping matter.

I suppose one could look at cleaning the Augean Stables as merely a housekeeping matter as well, and that perspective probably explains how many Catholics view their faith.

Too many people … feel embarrassed by their religion and vaguely out of step with the times. They may keep their religion for comfort value. Or they may adjust it to fit their doubts. But it doesn’t reshape their lives because it isn’t real. And because it isn’t real,* it has no transforming effect on their personal behavior, no social force and few public consequences.*** (Ibid)

Ender

 

[altarboi20]

This isn’t right at all. He has no authority to tell these people who work for the church that they can not participate in a gay wedding. I understand using the church or anything owned by the church but the people out of the question.

 

[Marie5890]

This isn’t right at all. He has no authority to tell these people who work for the church that they can not participate in a gay wedding. I understand using the church or anything owned by the church but the people out of the question.

Of course he has the authority. They work for the (his) archdiocese. They get paid with monies from the Catholics of his archdiocese.

Why wouldnt he have the authority? Where are you getting the idea that he doesnt have the authority? He absolutely does.

 

[JReducation]

This isn’t right at all. He has no authority to tell these people who work for the church that they can not participate in a gay wedding. I understand using the church or anything owned by the church but the people out of the question.

Let’s take this in parts.

First, this is a moral issue. As the bishop, he has the authority to tell his entire diocese that they cannot participate in anything that is immoral.

Second, many employers have rules in their handbooks or in the contract that prohibit the employees participation in anything that creates a conflict of interest. This is definitely a conflict of interest.

Third, the Archdiocese of NY is not the only religious employer that forbids its employees participation in same-sex weddings. Many Fundamentalist Protestant churches do so, all Isalmic institutions prohibit it, every Orthodox Jewish congregation and institution prohibit it and the Eastern Orthodox prohibit it.

It falls under the same category as terminating a Catholic employee who marries, divorces and remarries. The Church can do this and has done it, when it causes a scandal.

In civil law, this would go under conflict of interests. In Church Law it falls under the pastoral authority of the diocesan bishop. He has to stay within the boundaries of what the civil law and ecclesiastical law allow. But there is nothing in these decree that is outside of those boundaries. He’s not really commanding anything that other bishops don’t already do. The difference here is that the Archbishop made his statement available to the public and in many other dioceses this has gone out in the form of an in-house memo.

These policies are in place in many dioceses. They are either on paper or have been handed down by verbal decree at deanery meetings and the like.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Corki]

This isn’t right at all. He has no authority to tell these people who work for the church that they can not participate in a gay wedding. I understand using the church or anything owned by the church but the people out of the question.

Of course he does. Anyone working for a Catholic organization should know not to publically participate in immoral activities. These are employees. Any company can set standards of behavior for its employees.