US Bishops Denounce False "Catholic" Theologian Maguire

[otjm]

Riley, I agree with you that at least, the bishops “took a stand”, so to say.

But here’s the problem… what the USCCB put out was all bark and no bite. Maguire is still a “theoligian in good standing” at a so-called Catholic university. His superiors (namely, the Jesuits) have done nothing along the lines of corrective actions. In accordance with (or ignoring, as the case may be) The Oath of Fidelity, the local bishop is conspicuously silent on the matter. And I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the USCCB will shy away from taking ANY REAL actions against this guy (Maguire).

But you know what? I hope to God I’m proven wrong.

The local bishop has no authority over that university as it - the university - is not a possession of the Catholic Church; it is an independent not-profit corporation with its own board of directors. And perhaps you have herad of the term “tenure”, which gives certain legal rights to the professor, ones that are not simply dismissed if someone does not like what he is teaching.The USCCB has probably done all that it legally - either in civil law or Canon Law - can do. As it is not a diocese, it does not have any authority over the professor, and it may be debateable as to how much authority the bishop has in Canon Law.

 

[childofmary1143]

Gosh… lemme see, Holy Mother The Church is spit in the face on a daily basis, and I’m suppose to look the other way? Sorry, I can’t take such a cavaleir attitude towards heretics and those who support them.

And your point being? That rationale rates right up there with a doctor telling you “well, at least we got MOST of the malignant tumors. You should be happy”.

Yeah… I’ll relax. Good idea. In the meantime, Catholic kids are having their faith poisoned at MU. Excellent advice, Ham.

As a matter of fact… I do! Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ has sent His Holy Mother to us to give us the warning that the work of satan shall infiltrate even into The Church. Isn’t it GREAT that Jesus did that for us??? But hey… I’ll tell Jesus just to relax, right?

Evangelization? I just made you aware of the Warnings given at Akita, didn’t I?

*“No need to freak out”. *Billions of dollars in lawsuits because priests rape kids, and their bishops protect them.

*“No need to freak out”. *It’s finally coming to light that millions of dollars have been stolen from parishes by their own priests.

*“No need to freak out”. *Untold numbers of souls are being led to hell by outright heretics. And to make matters worse, our so-called shepherds either look the other way or pay lip service.

*“No need to freak out”. *The Warnings given by Our Lady of Akita get louder and louder every day. And many just shrug their shoulders.

Hey Jesus and Mary, listen to Ham… No need to freak out, just relax.

Gee, all of a sudden I feel like a rousing chorus of Kumbaya, or maybe even On Eagles Wings.

I agree with everything you are saying Caveman but I like On Eagles Wings!!

 

[didymus]

The local bishop has no authority over that university as it - the university - is not a possession of the Catholic Church; it is an independent not-[profit corporation with its own board of directors. And perhaps you have heard of the term “tenure”, which gives certain legal rights to the professor, ones that are not simply dismissed if someone does not like what he is teaching.The USCCB has probably done all that it legally - either in civil law or Canon Law - can do. As it is not a diocese, it does not have any authority over the professor, and it may be debatable as to how much authority the bishop has in Canon Law.

Well, I certainly don’t understand why the USCCB didn’t make the same declaration much earlier or, for that matter why the CDF hasn’t acted.

Yes, I know the Church acts slowly, but I think they need to speed things up, especially when you have the views of a dissident theologian being spread by all the means of modern communication.

It might be one thing to give Fr. Sorbino, whom most people never heard of (and most folks would be bored to tears by the discussion) but when a Catholic [sic] theologian at a Catholic advocates abortion and gay marriage they need to act fast.

[/quote]

 

[Follower]

The local bishop has no authority over that university as it - the university - is not a possession of the Catholic Church; it is an independent not-[profit corporation with its own board of directors. And perhaps you have herad of the term “tenure”, which gives certain legal rights to the professor, ones that are not simply dismissed if someone does not like what he is teaching.

This all sounds correct. But I wonder whether Marquette University has done what it does have the power to do. First off, it strikes me that Marquette not only can, but should, take steps to publicize the USCCB’s action on the campus and among the students. Second, it strikes me that even if Marquette can’t dismiss Maguire because he has tenure, it can at least intervene to prevent fraud upon its students: if he’s claiming to be a professor of Catholic theology even though, in fact, what he’s peddling isn’t Catholic, that could put Marquette in hot water because it could be held vicariously liable for Maguire’s misrepresentations. Therefore, Marquette can insist on no mischaracterizations by Maguire regarding the Catholicity of what he’s teaching & writing – or, at a minimum, that an appropriately worded, and prominently displayed, caveat/disclaimer attend any course descriptions of Maguire-taught courses. Marquette can also make efforts to provide rebuttals, from an authentically Catholic perspective, of Maguire’s errors – ideally on as close to a real-time basis as possible. Does anyone know whether and to what extent Marquette is doing any of these things?

The USCCB has probably done all that it legally - either in civil law or Canon Law - can do. As it is not a diocese, it does not have any authority over the professor, and it may be debateable as to how much authority the bishop has in Canon Law.

You may be right… but does anyone know whether the USCCB is taking steps to ensure that its statement gets maximum circulation and publicity? For example, if all the USCCB has done is issue a release and post the statement on its website, I’d be disappointed. Maguire clearly made considerable efforts to give his own heretical statements maximum wing; the USCCB is hopefully at least matching Maguire’s own circulation list.
[/quote]

 

[Caveman]

The local bishop has no authority over that university as it - the university - is not a possession of the Catholic Church; it is an independent not-[profit corporation with its own board of directors. And perhaps you have herad of the term “tenure”, which gives certain legal rights to the professor, ones that are not simply dismissed if someone does not like what he is teaching.The USCCB has probably done all that it legally - either in civil law or Canon Law - can do. As it is not a diocese, it does not have any authority over the professor, and it may be debateable as to how much authority the bishop has in Canon Law.

Not entirely true. According to the CDF mandated Oath of Fidelity, the following –

With Christian obedience** I shall follow what the Bishops,** as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also — with due regard for the character and purpose of my institute — faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

If the local bishop or the entire USCCB had a back-bone, they’d win at any given tribunal or canonical trial. But there’s the rub… if they had a back-bone.
[/quote]

 

[otjm]

Not entirely true. According to the CDF mandated Oath of Fidelity, the following –

With Christian obedience** I shall follow what the Bishops,** as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also — with due regard for the character and purpose of my institute — faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

If the local bishop or the entire USCCB had a back-bone, they’d win at any given tribunal or canonical trial. But there’s the rub… if they had a back-bone.

Again, the issue is that the USCCB has no Canonical authority to do much of anything other than what it has done. And some local bishops have no backbone; others do, but we do not necessarily see what they do as it is not done publicly. The point is, if a professor, or the whole bunch at a university choose not to go through the process of the mandatum, there is little the bishop can do. He has no connection to the university, and anything he says publicly may find him talking with the diocese’ attorny who has heard from the attorney for the university. Getting dragged into a libel/slander and interference with contract case may be decided in the diocese’ favor in the long run, if the bishop has enough money to outlast the university. And given the low number of students who appear to be very interested in, or even slightly interested in the issue of the mandatum may cause further discouragment from “going after” these professors.

 

[Caveman]

Again, the issue is that the USCCB has no Canonical authority to do much of anything other than what it has done. And some local bishops have no backbone; others do, but we do not necessarily see what they do as it is not done publicly. The point is, if a professor, or the whole bunch at a university choose not to go through the process of the mandatum, there is little the bishop can do. He has no connection to the university, and anything he says publicly may find him talking with the diocese’ attorny who has heard from the attorney for the university. Getting dragged into a libel/slander and interference with contract case may be decided in the diocese’ favor in the long run, if the bishop has enough money to outlast the university. And given the low number of students who appear to be very interested in, or even slightly interested in the issue of the mandatum may cause further discouragment from “going after” these professors.

Like Iststed on my first post, the rector of MU (Father James Flaherty) assumed office AFTER the OoF was mandated by the CDF.

As we know, the OoF mandated the follwing;

*Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the profession of faith: "**the rectors *of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector’s term of office"; and, “at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals”…

I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that if the question was agressivly pushed, the CDF would win in a canonical trial (or some other type of tribunal).

But then again, I’m a realist to know that nothing of the sort will ever happen.

 

[otjm]

Like Iststed on my first post, the rector of MU (Father James Flaherty) assumed office AFTER the OoF was mandated by the CDF.

As we know, the OoF mandated the follwing;

*Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the profession of faith: “**the rectors ***of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector’s term of office”; and, “at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals”…

I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that if the question was agressivly pushed, the CDF would win in a canonical trial (or some other type of tribunal).

But then again, I’m a realist to know that nothing of the sort will ever happen.

That makes for an interesting question, both as to whether or not the mandatum can be enforced canonically against an independent institution, and as to what might be the outcome vis a vis civil law should the bishop try it.

Most of the colleges and universities which, prior to the 1960s were Catholic, as in run by either a diocese or an order (e.g. Notre Dame, Holy Cross Order) separated from the Church ownership/authority and became independent corporations with a Board of Directors who were not answerable to the Order, but rather to the corporation.

They were Catholic before in that they were owned and operated by either the Church or by an Order within the Church. They were Catholic after that in that they held themselves out as essentially the same institution as before; in other words, the President of the University was the same person; the professors were the same professors. However, over time, many have lost the Catholic identity they previously had, e.g. the dustup at Georgetwon over whether or not there would be crosses in the classrooms (a very minor but telling go-round). I am not sure that the mandatum could be enforced against a professor at Notre Dame any more than it could, say, against a professor teaching “Catholic theology” at say, Michigan State, or, say, George Fox University in Oregon (putatively Quaker) . All three are non-profit institutions (and I do not know if the Quakers actually own and run George Fox or if it too has a lay board).

Essentially, what I am saying is that many think the issue of the mandatum is a cut and dried issue that the bishop can demand should he so choose. Rome issued the mandatum rule for world wide application, not something specific to the United States. World wide, the issue of a school being Catholic may be very different in other countries than it is in the US; and the presumption that it works across the board may not be as simple as most perceive it to be.

Certainly, a professor at an independent University can apply for the mandatum; and given that, the question may more be why certain bishops choose to not make that public. The answers I have heard make a smoke and mirror answer appear to be fairly straight forward.

 

[Caveman]

That makes for an interesting question, both as to whether or not the mandatum can be enforced canonically against an independent institution, and as to what might be the outcome vis a vis civil law should the bishop try it.

Most of the colleges and universities which, prior to the 1960s were Catholic, as in run by either a diocese or an order (e.g. Notre Dame, Holy Cross Order) separated from the Church ownership/authority and became independent corporations with a Board of Directors who were not answerable to the Order, but rather to the corporation.

They were Catholic before in that they were owned and operated by either the Church or by an Order within the Church. They were Catholic after that in that they held themselves out as essentially the same institution as before; in other words, the President of the University was the same person; the professors were the same professors. However, over time, many have lost the Catholic identity they previously had, e.g. the dustup at Georgetwon over whether or not there would be crosses in the classrooms (a very minor but telling go-round). I am not sure that the mandatum could be enforced against a professor at Notre Dame any more than it could, say, against a professor teaching “Catholic theology” at say, Michigan State, or, say, George Fox University in Oregon (putatively Quaker) . All three are non-profit institutions (and I do not know if the Quakers actually own and run George Fox or if it too has a lay board).

Essentially, what I am saying is that many think the issue of the mandatum is a cut and dried issue that the bishop can demand should he so choose. Rome issued the mandatum rule for world wide application, not something specific to the United States. World wide, the issue of a school being Catholic may be very different in other countries than it is in the US; and the presumption that it works across the board may not be as simple as most perceive it to be.

Certainly, a professor at an independent University can apply for the mandatum; and given that, the question may more be why certain bishops choose to not make that public. The answers I have heard make a smoke and mirror answer appear to be fairly straight forward.

Exceptionally good points you raise. But I gotta say… this is what sticks in my craw. If the CDF is going to put out mandates… that even a simple guy like me can understand that this also does apply to the Jesuits… and if the CDF is going to allow themselves to be ignored, they why even put them out to begin with?

 

[otjm]

Exceptionally good points you raise. But I gotta say… this is what sticks in my craw. If the CDF is going to put out mandates… that even a simple guy like me can understand that this also does apply to the Jesuits… and if the CDF is going to allow themselves to be ignored, they why even put them out to begin with?

The CDF speaks for the whole Church and to the whole Church. And what you say or seem to imply, that the issue of the mandatum is simple to understand, does not take into account whatever else it integrates with and impacts.

Cardinal Levada recently commented on the sanctioning the CDf did of a theologian in South/Central America concerning his teaching in Liberation Theology. The issue has been on-going with that theologian for a number of years. Levada spoke about the fact that it takes too long, but also noted that the Church simply does not move quickly as it needs to give a fair hearing to the whole issue.

And as to the CDF being ignored, the mandatum is in the provence of the bishop, and I don’t recall that it was made mandatory that the bishop do any particular thing; it was broadly written to cover the whole world, and not narrowly written to resolve issues in the US. It is one of those rules that fits somewhere, but not necesarily everywhere.

Again, neither the Pope nor the CDF micromanages any and every diocese. There generally seems to be an expectation among certain ranks that if there is a problem in a parish and the bishop doesn’t jump on it, that Rome is going to. Doesn’t happen that way, and pretty much throughout the history of the Church hasn’t happened that way.The expectation is there, but the expectation is not in sync with reality.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Interesting arcticle.

Here is a quote from it.

WASHINGTON (Catholic Online) – The views published by a Catholic theologian on contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage “do not present authentic Catholic teaching,” said the U.S. bishops in a rare “public correction.”

In a statement released March 22, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Doctrine took aim at two pamphlets published by Daniel Maguire, a 75-year-old professor at the Jesuit Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wis., “The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion” and “A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage.”

He said he sent that one to members of Congress and state legislators in Wisconsin. In the pamphlets, which were sent to the nation’s 270 bishops on June 19, 2006, as well as to members of the U.S. Congress and Wisconsin state legislature, Maguire argued that abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage are morally permissible under Catholic doctrine, that the church teaching on these issues is “pluralistic” and that Catholic theologians through history had expressed a variety of positions on those issues.

Link:

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=23517

Finally the Bishop speaks out.

 

[KathleenElsie]

“We deplore as irresponsible his public advocacy of his views as authentic Catholic teaching. Lastly, we trust that this statement will clarify the church’s teaching for all of the Catholic faithful throughout the United States,” the bishops said.
The members of the bishops’ Committee on Doctrine are: Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman; Bishop Leonard P. Blair of Toledo, Ohio; Auxiliary Bishop Edward W. Clark of Los Angeles, Calif.; Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of San Antonio, Texas; Bishop Robert J. McManus of Worcester, Mass.; Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Patterson, N.J.; Bishop Allen H. Vigneron of Oakland, Calif.; and Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington.

From the same article. I pray they will do this for other public matters also.