The USCCB, do we have to follow them?

[Geldain]

I’m a new convert to the Church and I’m curious about something. Of all the issues regarding obediance to the Pope and to the Magisterium which were discussed in RCIA, the matter of the USCCB never came up.

As Catholics, are we bound to adhere to what they say regarding political issues of the day?

Also, does the USCCB trump or outrank the local bishop in authority?

 

[Ham1]

Geldain:

I’m a new convert to the Church and I’m curious about something. Of all the issues regarding obediance to the Pope and to the Magisterium which were discussed in RCIA, the matter of the USCCB never came up.

As Catholics, are we bound to adhere to what they say regarding political issues of the day?

Also, does the USCCB trump or outrank the local bishop in authority?

Yes, we are bound to heed their teachings. The Church recognizes that the teaching of a bishop is authoritative. Further, the teaching of a group of bishop’s is, in a sense, even more forceful.

Was there a particular document that struck you as inconsistent with Church teaching?

The USCCB does not trump your local bishop. Each bishop has authority over his own diocese and he does not have to follow his brother bishop’s every policy.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Geldain:

I’m a new convert to the Church and I’m curious about something. Of all the issues regarding obediance to the Pope and to the Magisterium which were discussed in RCIA, the matter of the USCCB never came up.

As Catholics, are we bound to adhere to what they say regarding political issues of the day?

Also, does the USCCB trump or outrank the local bishop in authority?

The USCCB is a consultive body of bishops. Its decisions have power only when 1) unanimous - i.e. approved and imposed by the local bishop or 2) confirmed by Rome - i.e. imposed by the Pope.

 

[Walking_Home]

Ham1:

Yes, we are bound to heed their teachings. The Church recognizes that the teaching of a bishop is authoritative. Further, the teaching of a group of bishop’s is, in a sense, even more forceful.

Was there a particular document that struck you as inconsistent with Church teaching?

The USCCB does not trump your local bishop. Each bishop has authority over his own diocese and he does not have to follow his brother bishop’s every policy.

---

Here I will add that the authority over the bishops is Rome. A bishop himself does not have the authority to go against what Rome has allowed.

 

[Marauder]

Actually the real answer is it depends. It depends on what issues they are talking about, whether the issue is binding, and whether they have Vatican backing.

Something from the USCCB in and of itself does not over rule a Bishop in his own diocese but if that ruling is signed off on by the Vatican then it would overrule that Bishop.

As for whether you must believe what comes out of the USCCB, no matter what you must respect it, but whether you have to believe it or not depends on the type of issue. If it has the backing of the Vatican and is a matter of faith and morals then you need to believe it.

Example:
Abortion / Euthanasia is a sin. You need to believe.
Particular method of dealing with immigration. Can believe what you want as to the proper way of dealing with immigration, as long as you remember that everyone is entitled to some rights as people.

 

[johnnykins]

Geldain:

As Catholics, are we bound to adhere to what they say regarding political issues of the day?

Neither the Church, nor any Bishop, has any particular political competence. So for purely political issues, you are not obliged to adhere to anything they say more than anyone else. However, to the extent that the Bishop(s) teach(es) on a particular moral issue that impacts political matters, there would, at least, be an obligation to consider the moral position of the Bishop(s) depending on the teaching - and there may be a moral obligation to act in concert with the teaching - again depending on the particular circumstances. Thus, for example, you could not morally vote for a pro-Abortion candidate under almost any circumstance. That does not mean you would have to vote for an antiabortion candidate you otherwise disagree with. Likewise a prudential moral judgment, such as opposition to the death penalty, would require at least consideration of the issue and teaching - and may impact your ability to vote for a pro-death penalty candidate, though it may not. Similarly with varying degrees of certitude as to the moral position on war, etc., you may need to consider the moral teaching - and maybe be limited or not as the circumstances call for.

 

[Ham1]

Marauder:

Particular method of dealing with immigration. Can believe what you want as to the proper way of dealing with immigration, as long as you remember that everyone is entitled to some rights as people.

This is correct. However, deference to prudential judgements is something that many of us should work on. We should remember who is teaching us certain things and be careful about disregarding because “we know better.” That’s dangerous ground to tread on. At the end of time, you won’t get called on the carpet for following your bishop’s prudential judgement. You might get called out for doing the opposite.

 

[Geldain]

Ham1:

Was there a particular document that struck you as inconsistent with Church teaching?

I don’t know of any inconsistency in Church teaching. However, in other forums I’ve observed posters quoting the USCCB on immigration as if this was the law for Catholics to follow. Again, this was not covered in RCIA and I plan on asking my priest when I see him next about this as well.

The USCCB does not trump your local bishop. Each bishop has authority over his own diocese and he does not have to follow his brother bishop’s every policy.

Thank you for this information. Seems I have some researching to do here in my diocese.

 

[Ham1]

I’m not sure what the Bishops have said on immigration. I know that the Church teaches that a man has a right to work and provide for his family in the country of his choice.

 

[Marauder]

Geldain:

I don’t know of any inconsistency in Church teaching. However, in other forums I’ve observed posters quoting the USCCB on immigration as if this was the law for Catholics to follow. Again, this was not covered in RCIA and I plan on asking my priest when I see him next about this as well.

No the USCCB’s comments on immigration reform are not law. But they should be respected. The immigration reform situation is a perfect example of whether you have to follow them or not. It is pretty clear that building a wall, and calling every illegal in this country a felon and providing any support to them would be denying people basic rights as people. But the proper method for dealing with the situation can be up for debate You can believe exactly what the USCCB says on the proper method or just use it as a guideline.

There has been some comments from Vatican officials but nothing official yet, but based on the comments below you can get an idea on what the Vatican thinks about immigration reform.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=66189

 

[Geldain]

Ham1:

I’m not sure what the Bishops have said on immigration. I know that the Church teaches that a man has a right to work and provide for his family in the country of his choice.

So if I wish to work in Spain and have to break laws to do so, according to Church teaching I am permitted to violate Spain’s immigration laws because I wish to work and provide for my family there?

I don’t want to turn this into an immigration thread. I just had to ask after reading that.

edit: I just read the link at EWTN (God Bless Mother Angelica!) Things are clearer now to a certain degree.

He said he did not intend his comments to be “a statement against a law,” but emphasized that “man has the right to immigrate and communities and nations have the right to receive those who immigrate and the right to establish certain norms.”

 

[Ham1]

Geldain:

So if I wish to work in Spain and have to break laws to do so, according to Church teaching I am permitted to violate Spain’s immigration laws because I wish to work and provide for my family there?

I don’t want to turn this into an immigration thread. I just had to ask after reading that.

That is inconsistent with what I posted. My post makes no mention of violating laws. You are obligated to follow the law in legally moving to Spain. Spain is obligated to make laws that assist you in providing for your family there.

 

[Marauder]

Geldain:

So if I wish to work in Spain and have to break laws to do so, according to Church teaching I am permitted to violate Spain’s immigration laws because I wish to work and provide for my family there?

I don’t want to turn this into an immigration thread. I just had to ask after reading that.

Read the link I provided for a little clearer explanation of the rights of immigrants vs. the rights of countries. What Msgr. Sanchez said isn’t binding but you can get an idea of where the Vatican may be leaning.

“All peoples have been immigrants” and immigration is “one of the characteristics of globalization.” Likewise, he defended the right and freedom of movement of the 400 million immigrants around the world. He said that closing the doors to them goes “against the natural order (and) against the Christian order.”

He said he did not intend his comments to be “a statement against a law,” but emphasized that “man has the right to immigrate and communities and nations have the right to receive those who immigrate and the right to establish certain norms.”

Msgr. Sanchez added warned against allowing immigration to “become clandestine” because that would mean a further trampling of human rights.

 

[Geldain]

Ham1:

That is inconsistent with what I posted. My post makes no mention of violating laws. You are obligated to follow the law in legally moving to Spain. Spain is obligated to make laws that assist you in providing for your family there.

Sorry, trying to multitask here. I see what you mean more clearly after reading the link from EWTN.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Keep in mind that your obedience primarily belongs to the local bishop who is in union with Rome. If you would like to know more about the nature of bishop conferences read the document Apostolos Suos:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2APOST.HTM

I hope this answers your question.

God Bless.

 

[Brain]

the way I view church authority (This is what i wrote in my semianry application, so i hope it was right, I guess I will see in a few months):

The bishops in communion with the Pope are the valid temporal leaders of the Church and hold the teaching office. Specifically, after the authority of the Holy See and the Curia (where their power reaches locally), the bishop of a place should be obeyed or at least deferred to if one is under his authority or in his territory, respectively. Also, the opinion or teaching of any bishop that one does not owe direct obedience to should be respected as coming from a prince of the Church and honestly considered before a decision to agree or disagree is made. Though I may from time to time struggle with a given decision, I would submit. I cannot say that looking across the world or nation or even my, I would necessarily agree with every decision made by the Bishops, but I make an effort to remain respectful, trust them, and obey their desisions.