U.S. Bishops lost their authority?

[EphelDuath]

Actually, I interpret that Abraham story in this context: Abraham lived among pagans who regularly practiced child sacrifice. He believed that this was a good thing, so, believing this would be pleasing to God, he toddled Isaac off to the mountain, carrying along kindling, just as his neighbors would. He didn’t question the morality or the spirituality of killing his son. God stopped him from going through with it, and henceforth child sacrifice was seen as a no-no among those who followed the Lord.

So how do you explain the fact that God ordered the sacrifice? Gen 22:2

And the beatings…tell that to those who suffered the Inquisition. Tell that to theologians of our day who have been silenced or excommunicated.

:ehh:

What exactly do you think happens when somebody is excommunicated?

Also, enough with the Inquisition. The Roman inquisition did not torture people. The Spanish did, but they were under the authority of the monarchy of Spain, not the Catholic Church (as seen by the various Papal bulls that attempted to end the Spanish Inquisition which were ignored).

A gag is a resort to power to squelch potential truth. In resorting to that power, the magisterium at all levels are denying the power of the Holy Spirit

A gag’s also the way to make it very clear that there’s no room left for dialogue and anything short of obedience is skirting dangerous territory.

 

[pnewton]

I contend that a conversation that allows the exploration of any issues so that there is the full opportunity for the voice of the Spirit to speak to the Faithful (and the Spirit is in all the Faithful)

Do you think the faithful should be able to believe, or not in the divinity of Christ?

, the magisterium at all levels are denying the power of the Holy Spirit

No, they are* trusting* in the Holy Spirit.

You keep saying “tell it to…”. Can you actual put a name to that. What current US bishop has used physical discipline?

 

[RevDon]

A gag’s also the way to make it very clear that there’s no room left for dialogue and anything short of obedience is skirting dangerous territory.

My point exactly. You don’t win hearts and minds that way.

 

[EphelDuath]

My point exactly. You don’t win hearts and minds that way.

Au contraire, I think it does the Catholic Church a favor to itself by making clear that many novelties of the era are not up for debate. The Church is a pillar of truth, not a pebble to be tossed around with every age’s new errors.

 

[RevDon]

Au contraire, I think it does the Catholic Church a favor to itself by making clear that many novelties of the era are not up for debate. The Church is a pillar of truth, not a pebble to be tossed around with every age’s new errors.

Debate is a long-recognized medium for establishing truth.

 

[EphelDuath]

Debate is a long-recognized medium for establishing truth.

Bologna, I say to that. If one is skilled enough in rhetoric they can win a debate over a point they hold which is factually wrong.

In some circumstances debate can be used for the purposes of sanctification, such as the heretic innkeeper that was converted by St. Dominic after a whole night’s-long argument. But the Church has saw fit in this circumstance to say that this is what is true, it will not change, do not bother trying–for pastoral reasons, since this needed to be emphasized to prevent more obscurity over the truth of the matter.

And who are we to argue?

 

[PatriceA]

Au contraire, I think it does the Catholic Church a favor to itself by making clear that many novelties of the era are not up for debate. The Church is a pillar of truth, not a pebble to be tossed around with every age’s new errors.

I agree, and back to the original question, I disagree the US Bishops have lost their authority.

 

[may_they_be_one]

I disagree the US Bishops have lost their authority.

I agree, they haven’t lost their authority over PRACTICING Catholics.

I’d love your responses to on the actual question of the OP:
What about the majority of baptized Catholics who are NON-PRACTICING Catholics–yet still call themselves Catholic?

To restate my thoughts in the OP…
Are our U.S. Bishops–who are to be focusing on the New Evangelization–in need of a refresher in the evangelizing techniques gifted through the Divine Charisms of the Holy Spirit? Knowing these Charisms have been REGULARLY used since the dawn of the Church for the purposes of evangelization–as clearly described throughout the NT Scriptures–but vastly ignored today?

PEACE in Him

 

[Julianna]

The beatings will continue until morale improves. The authority of the magisterium worked in a world where there was little education and poor communication. Today there are more advanced degrees among nuns than among bishops, and news media report not only misdeeds, but also bad judjment. The Holy Spirit is a powerful source of authority, underpinned by a command of tradition. Contemporary Americans are not satisfied with “because I said so” as a reason to accept a teaching. We want to understand. We demand that teachings make sense. We have sufficient access to scripture to get a sense of what is consistent with the teaching of Jesus. The bishops’ authority will grow to the degree that their teaching is relevant and logical, and represents the compassion of Christ, which is needed more in our world than obedience to ecclesiastical authority.

You’ve got that right. Scaring people to death, is clearly not working. Change comes from within…you can’t scare it, pound it, guilt it, or entice it into human beings.

 

[thomasf]

Jesus gave His apostles authority and the same power to forgive sin and bestow graces that He had. “As the Father sent me so I send you”. THAT is the source of authority of the bishops and magesterium today. The understanding that SOMEONE has to have authority, and it’s not just a free for all where each person decides what’s best for themselves is key to understanding and accepting authority. Catholics in America have a hard time following their Bishops because the culture in the US promotes that attitude. Americans reject authority and believe that they can decide for themselves. Americans are individualists. I am guilty of this myself. But that cannot work in a church. SOMEONE has to be the one to decide things, SOMEONE has to be the person to speak for God, otherwise their is no uniform church. So you either believe in the free for all and that everyone can decide what’s best for themselves when it comes to God and morality, or you come to the conclusion that someone has to be the person to decide. When you come to the realization that authority is necessary to know what God intends, what His teachings are, what His church means, then you are ready to accept that authority. If you are ready for that, you can read scripture and see that Chirst gave that authority to someone, and that the Catholic church has claimed that authority from the beginning, and that our church leaders trace their line of succession all the way back to Peter and the apostles. That right there should be all you need to accept the authority of the church.

The problem with American Catholics is that tehy believe the church is a democracy and they can decide for themselves that they know better than the Bishops and the Magisterium. The church doesn’t need to change to get them to come to the church, the people need to change and accept the historical authority of the Bishops as given by Christ.

 

[Julianna]

Actually, I interpret that Abraham story in this context: Abraham lived among pagans who regularly practiced child sacrifice. He believed that this was a good thing, so, believing this would be pleasing to God, he toddled Isaac off to the mountain, carrying along kindling, just as his neighbors would. He didn’t question the morality or the spirituality of killing his son. God stopped him from going through with it, and henceforth child sacrifice was seen as a no-no among those who followed the Lord.

And the beatings…tell that to those who suffered the Inquisition. Tell that to theologians of our day who have been silenced or excommunicated.

I contend that a conversation that allows the exploration of any issues so that there is the full opportunity for the voice of the Spirit to speak to the Faithful (and the Spirit is in all the Faithful)
is necessary. A gag is a resort to power to squelch potential truth. In resorting to that power, the magisterium at all levels are denying the power of the Holy Spirit

Agreed. I brought up that point on another thread and was told, it was irrelevant; the church is an absolute monarchy. So I guess some human beings are better/closer to God/have the best judgement to guide the Church than others. It now makes sense why alot of my Confirmation candidates back in the day (all grown now), never came back to the Church.

 

[RevDon]

Jesus gave His apostles authority and the same power to forgive sin and bestow graces that He had. “As the Father sent me so I send you”. THAT is the source of authority of the bishops and magesterium today. The understanding that SOMEONE has to have authority, and it’s not just a free for all where each person decides what’s best for themselves is key to understanding and accepting authority. Catholics in America have a hard time following their Bishops because the culture in the US promotes that attitude. Americans reject authority and believe that they can decide for themselves. Americans are individualists. I am guilty of this myself. But that cannot work in a church. SOMEONE has to be the one to decide things, SOMEONE has to be the person to speak for God, otherwise their is no uniform church. So you either believe in the free for all and that everyone can decide what’s best for themselves when it comes to God and morality, or you come to the conclusion that someone has to be the person to decide. When you come to the realization that authority is necessary to know what God intends, what His teachings are, what His church means, then you are ready to accept that authority. If you are ready for that, you can read scripture and see that Chirst gave that authority to someone, and that the Catholic church has claimed that authority from the beginning, and that our church leaders trace their line of succession all the way back to Peter and the apostles. That right there should be all you need to accept the authority of the church.

The problem with American Catholics is that tehy believe the church is a democracy and they can decide for themselves that they know better than the Bishops and the Magisterium. The church doesn’t need to change to get them to come to the church, the people need to change and accept the historical authority of the Bishops as given by Christ.

I agree with most of your posting. I would only add that the Church must operate in the world, and still has the mission of bringing all people to Christ. Paul understood that just shouting louder than everybody else, “I have the truth!” wouldn’t do it. Jesus, too appealed to the experiences of his listeners in ways that made his message both sensible and attractive (even when he was urging them to take up their cross). Authority must be used in a way that will bring about conversion of heart and mind. Things must make sense to the listener for that to take place. Statements must speak to the lived experience of the listeners.
I’m afraid that the American Bishops are not very good at that

 

[dcharles]

The problem is that Catholic scholars and bishops in this country have picked up so many errors from Protestantism and secularism, that they don’t understand the basics of what the Church teaches. ONLY if they study what the Popes teach, esp starting with Pope Paul VI and onward, can they get back to the beauty of attractiveness of the teachings of the Church.
And while I think 99% of the priests are great and wonderful men, and the most important people in the world, because they are the primary teachers of the good news of salvation, without someone to teach them properly, they can’t teach the people properly. So we need to pray that God will raise up good Catholic scholars who will teach the priests so they can teach the world, so the world can be joyful with the love of God.

For example, the bishops and scholars can’t answer basic questions, like
Why did God become man? For our salvation they would answer. But what is salvation? What is the Church teaching? Most would say something about going to heaven or to open the gates of heaven, but the primary reason is to liberate us from sin. If they think that the primary reason God became man was to open the gates of heaven, then they won’t be able to explain the purpose of the mass. And if they can’t explain the purpose of the mass, then people will not go to mass. And if they don’t go to mass, they can’t love God and others the way they should, and if they don’t love then they can’t be happy in their lives, and they will vote for politicians who who also reject love, and who promote the culture of death.
And if they can’t explain that Jesus came to liberate us from sin so we can be happy on this earth, then they won’t be able to explain why Jesus teaches contraception is a sin.
It is a sin because it damages the love between husband and wife. And if the love between a husband and wife is damaged, then they won’t be happy. They will be more likely to divorce. Studies prove this fact.
In other words, every single teaching of the Catholic Church is for our happiness on this earth. That is because all the doctrines of the Church come from God and everything God taught is for our happiness on this earth, and some of these teachings also have to do with our happiness in heaven.

When Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical on contraception, it was for our happiness.
He said these questions have to to with “the happiness of man”, and man can’t be happy if he rejects God’s teachings.

I don’t think a single Catholic scholar or bishop explained that the Pope’s teachings, which had come down from Jesus through the apostles, were for our happiness on earth. Humanae vitae was written primarily for the happiness of married couples. It was not to lay down some obscure rule from God, that Catholics HAD to follow to get to heaven, that had nothing to do with life on earth. On the contrary, it was God’s teaching handed down for our happiness on earth. Catholics who have to limit their children and use natural family planning instead of contraception have only a 4% divorce rate. And if they pray and go to mass, the divorce rate is less than 1%. These teachings are for our happiness. All the Churches teachings are for our happiness. It seems like only the Popes understood this at the time. Now others are beginning to understand that everything the Church teaches is for our happiness because all these teachings, with God’s graces, increase our love for others. And those who love everyone are very, very happy.
Thus until the leaders start learning from the Popes, that everything Jesus did and taught was for our happiness, and that He founded the Church to carry on these teachings and to make available the graces that make it possible for men to follow these teachings and thus be happy, then little will change.
If all Catholics knew that the purpose of the mass is to bring us happiness and joy to our lives, through enabling us to love the way we should and the teachings on contraception were only for our happiness, then all Catholics would try to go to daily mass and they would throw away contraceptives, and their happy lives would bring millions to the faith.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is that Catholic scholars and bishops in this country have picked up so many errors from Protestantism and secularism, …

For example, the bishops and scholars can’t answer basic questions, like
Why did God become man? …

.

You know, I find it hard to accept any lay Catholic that so totally lumps all the Catholic bishops in the United States as somehow less Catholic than they are. I think the problem with authority of the bishops in such cases do not actually lie with the bishops.

 

[jwinch2]

You know, I find it hard to accept any lay Catholic that so totally lumps all the Catholic bishops in the United States as somehow less Catholic than they are. I think the problem with authority of the bishops in such cases do not actually lie with the bishops.

Agreed. I think it is fair to critique the handling of certain events by the bishops, but it can easily go too far.

If I had to offer one particular thing which could have contributed to a decrease in the perceived authority of the Bishops it would be in the frequency that they comment on issues which have no direct Church teaching. Documents are put out, statements are made, etc. which are by and large ignored by the laity or, if they are payed attention to, are concerning in the direction they take. One of the Bishops noted this recently when they voted down another document to be put out on the economy by saying (to paraphrase): that we really don’t need to put out yet another document that no one is going to read.

The frequency of comment on things which might not rise to the level of actual Church teaching can, in my opinion, can contribute to people taking their statements less seriously when the big stuff comes around.

 

[RevDon]

The problem is that Catholic scholars and bishops in this country have picked up so many errors from Protestantism and secularism, that they don’t understand the basics of what the Church teaches. ONLY if they study what the Popes teach, esp starting with Pope Paul VI and onward, can they get back to the beauty of attractiveness of the teachings of the Church.
And while I think 99% of the priests are great and wonderful men, and the most important people in the world, because they are the primary teachers of the good news of salvation, without someone to teach them properly, they can’t teach the people properly. So we need to pray that God will raise up good Catholic scholars who will teach the priests so they can teach the world, so the world can be joyful with the love of God.

For example, the bishops and scholars can’t answer basic questions, like
Why did God become man? For our salvation they would answer. But what is salvation? What is the Church teaching? Most would say something about going to heaven or to open the gates of heaven, but the primary reason is to liberate us from sin. If they think that the primary reason God became man was to open the gates of heaven, then they won’t be able to explain the purpose of the mass. And if they can’t explain the purpose of the mass, then people will not go to mass. And if they don’t go to mass, they can’t love God and others the way they should, and if they don’t love then they can’t be happy in their lives, and they will vote for politicians who who also reject love, and who promote the culture of death.
And if they can’t explain that Jesus came to liberate us from sin so we can be happy on this earth, then they won’t be able to explain why Jesus teaches contraception is a sin.
It is a sin because it damages the love between husband and wife. And if the love between a husband and wife is damaged, then they won’t be happy. They will be more likely to divorce. Studies prove this fact.
In other words, every single teaching of the Catholic Church is for our happiness on this earth. That is because all the doctrines of the Church come from God and everything God taught is for our happiness on this earth, and some of these teachings also have to do with our happiness in heaven.

When Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical on contraception, it was for our happiness.
He said these questions have to to with “the happiness of man”, and man can’t be happy if he rejects God’s teachings.

I don’t think a single Catholic scholar or bishop explained that the Pope’s teachings, which had come down from Jesus through the apostles, were for our happiness on earth. Humanae vitae was written primarily for the happiness of married couples. It was not to lay down some obscure rule from God, that Catholics HAD to follow to get to heaven, that had nothing to do with life on earth. On the contrary, it was God’s teaching handed down for our happiness on earth. Catholics who have to limit their children and use natural family planning instead of contraception have only a 4% divorce rate. And if they pray and go to mass, the divorce rate is less than 1%. These teachings are for our happiness. All the Churches teachings are for our happiness. It seems like only the Popes understood this at the time. Now others are beginning to understand that everything the Church teaches is for our happiness because all these teachings, with God’s graces, increase our love for others. And those who love everyone are very, very happy.
Thus until the leaders start learning from the Popes, that everything Jesus did and taught was for our happiness, and that He founded the Church to carry on these teachings and to make available the graces that make it possible for men to follow these teachings and thus be happy, then little will change.
If all Catholics knew that the purpose of the mass is to bring us happiness and joy to our lives, through enabling us to love the way we should and the teachings on contraception were only for our happiness, then all Catholics would try to go to daily mass and they would throw away contraceptives, and their happy lives would bring millions to the faith.

Paul VI convened a commission of scholars and theologians to study birth control. They returned a finding that birth control was not incompatible with Catholic teaching. He chose to ignore that finding, and the respect of authority in the Catholic Church began its decline. That decline has progressed as a result of poor judgment on the part of bishops and the Pope in the treatment of pedophile priests and financial matters, to name but a few issues.
In the First World, where education and information is readily available, people need to be convinced that church teaching is for our happiness, especially when it appears to the contrary. The bishops are not listened to because their teaching isn’t founded on rational experience.
Another great example is the way the nuns have been treated. There are more earned doctorates in theology held by nuns than by bishops, yet their voice was not only ignored, but they were treated as potential heretics. This heavy-handed way of dealing with differences of opinion does not inspire confidence.

 

[pnewton]

Paul VI convened a commission of scholars and theologians to study birth control. They returned a finding that birth control was not incompatible with Catholic teaching. He chose to ignore that finding, and the respect of authority in the Catholic Church began its decline…

Ignore the finding? You do not know what data was considered. I noticed you have no documentation for this post of yours. No, anticatholicism was around before birth contol and will still be around after I am gone. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ, not the president of a university. God’s law matters more than man’s changing opinions.

 

[pnewton]

There are more earned doctorates in theology held by nuns than by bishops, yet their voice was not only ignored, but they were treated as potential heretics. This heavy-handed way of dealing with differences of opinion does not inspire confidence.

Peter Kreeft once remarked that all it takes to believe any of the 100 most absurd things ever postulated was a PhD. Christians never should put worldly wisdom over the wisdom of God. With or without education, we should know better.

 

[EphelDuath]

Paul VI convened a commission of scholars and theologians to study birth control. They returned a finding that birth control was not incompatible with Catholic teaching. He chose to ignore that finding, and the respect of authority in the Catholic Church began its decline.

Not even close. Stop reading the ridiculous propaganda that heretical baby-killers like “Catholics For Choice” spew.

The committee of scholars at one point held the majority view in favor of artificial contraception but in the end they ruled against it. This is the fact of the matter.

 

[dcharles]

Agreed. I think it is fair to critique the handling of certain events by the bishops, but it can easily go too far.

If I had to offer one particular thing which could have contributed to a decrease in the perceived authority of the Bishops it would be in the frequency that they comment on issues which have no direct Church teaching. Documents are put out, statements are made, etc. which are by and large ignored by the laity or, if they are payed attention to, are concerning in the direction they take. One of the Bishops noted this recently when they voted down another document to be put out on the economy by saying (to paraphrase): that we really don’t need to put out yet another document that no one is going to read.

The frequency of comment on things which might not rise to the level of actual Church teaching can, in my opinion, can contribute to people taking their statements less seriously when the big stuff comes around.

I agree totally. They comment on things that are not relevant and are silent on important issues.
Then most are silent about pro-abortion politicians. They say nothing about socialism, even though the Church condemns socialism over and over and over.
And again, one of the most rejected documents, Humanae
Vitae, is one that will bring about the most happiness to married couples, brings silence from them. They seem to have a secular outlook and don’t understand what Pope Paul VI was trying to teach.

And the most basic teaching is that Jesus became man primarily for our happiness here on earth. And the basic teachings of the Church come from God and they are to guide us on how to live a happy life and how we obtain the grace from God to live that life.
The bishops miss all this.
In other words, most of the bishops don’t teach that abortion will bring misery to those who choose to have abortions, not happiness. They don’t teach that if we choose to elect pro-abortion politicians that these will bring unhappiness to our country, because we are choosing people who have very little love for others. No one promotes abortion out of love for children.
They don’t teach that the very act of us choosing pro-abortion politicians damages our love for God and for others, which will cause our unhappiness because people who don’t love others are unhappy.
They entirely miss the point of Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae that if Catholics go against God’s law and contracept that it will bring unhappiness first to the married couples, then to society. Even though some bishops now point out the bad effects on society, they still seem to miss the point that going against Church teachings will bring unhappiness to the married couple themselves. Studies have proven that over and over. The high divorce rate from those who contracept is extremely well documented. But instead of promoting the good of the teaching, they are silent. Thus we have a high divorce rate, which leads to a high crime rate among the children, and so more unhappiness. The bishops seem to miss
that everything the Church teaches, is for our happiness, which is because everything the Church teaches comes from God and God only wants our happiness.

As Pope B16 teaches, “I therefore invite you every day to seek the Lord, who wants nothing more than for you to be truly happy.”

The entire purpose of the mass is to enable us to love God and others, so we can be happy. Because those who love others are happy, and those who don’t love, who are slaves to their feelings and immediate desires become imprisioned within themselves and can’t be happy, and they make others miserable also.

Since the bishops miss all this, it seems to ordinary Catholics that these bishops have no moral message. They are not relevant to society. They are silent about abortion, which is result of our secular society’s “me” generation, its lack of love for others, its materialism, and instead the bishops think the good is to promote socialism through national health insurance.
And then they wonder why Catholics will not back them up on defending freedom of religion, which is one issue they finally got right. They have entirely lost creditability and no one will listen to them now.