US Bishops

[awfulthings9]

A woman wrote in to our diocese paper expressing relief that the US bishops decided not to approve a “blacklist” of politicians who support abortion. Does anyone have more specifics regarding this, particularly a link with “official” news? At the USCCB site, the most recent I can find is from 2004.

 

[Brain]

What happened to my knowlege was that at the November meeting of the bishops, they produced a document otlining worthy reception of the eucharist. In the document was a list of certain acts that the bishops wanted to stress as being serious enough matter to be mortally sinful and thus forbid reception of the Euharist. Amoung them were things liek defrauding laborers, serious financial/business fraud, recieving or performing abortion, and pretty much any connection with pornography at all. The way I see it, where people are seeing the non-blacklisting of abortion proponents is that Pornography, another sexual sin, “blacklists” one for use, production, marketing, or pretty much any involvement whatsoever or indirect while abortion was only listed for direct involvement.
I personally would have liked to see a more comprehensive ban on Abortion propoents, not as a spite thing but to inform them of how serious their sin is. But as one of the bishops did say, to do so would have been excessively “messy, pastorally speaking” and the cost would outweigh the benefit. So the matter was considered.

 

[awalt]

Yes, the more pastoral approach would be to address the issues with the person on a personal basis - as the key issue here is RECONCILING them back to the Church, not just banning them. Banning them only, is impersonal and offers no chance for reconciliation. What the bishops should be doing, in cases where there is a suspected problem, is speak with them. It is only then that the proper balance of doctrine and pastoral guidance lends the best chance of bringing them back to the Church.

This of course doesn’t even bring into play things like where’s the line on someone being “pro abortion”, that could get very messy. Example, people having been writing letters to the Vatican suggesting parishioners who should be banned from the Eucharist because they voted for someone who has exhibited some degree of pro-abortion behavior (ignoring the fact that sometimes both candidates are pro abortion in some form or another, and we are forced to pick the lesser evil). No matter what the definition, there is another person pushing the definition even further. This is another strong reason why the bishops need to be Shepherds of their flock and not policeman. And thank God this was the conclusion they reached. Now hopefully they will SHEPHERD!!!

 

[Brain]

You are right, the bishops have created a great situation to start nipping this problem in the bud, and I hope all of them take advantage of it.

 

[30miller]

Yes, the more pastoral approach would be to address the issues with the person on a personal basis - as the key issue here is RECONCILING them back to the Church, not just banning them. Banning them only, is impersonal and offers no chance for reconciliation. What the bishops should be doing, in cases where there is a suspected problem, is speak with them. It is only then that the proper balance of doctrine and pastoral guidance lends the best chance of bringing them back to the Church.

This of course doesn’t even bring into play things like where’s the line on someone being “pro abortion”, that could get very messy. Example, people having been writing letters to the Vatican suggesting parishioners who should be banned from the Eucharist because they voted for someone who has exhibited some degree of pro-abortion behavior (ignoring the fact that sometimes both candidates are pro abortion in some form or another, and we are forced to pick the lesser evil). No matter what the definition, there is another person pushing the definition even further. This is another strong reason why the bishops need to be Shepherds of their flock and not policeman. And thank God this was the conclusion they reached. Now hopefully they will SHEPHERD!!!

The bishops need only follow the courageous lead of their brother Bishop Bruskewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska who just in the past couple of weeks was (after too long a wait of 12 years) confirmed by the Vatican in the Bishop’s dealings with PUBLIC actions by nominal Catholics belonging to groups including Call to Action, Masons, Catholics for a Free Choice, and several others. Bishop Bruskewicz gave them some time to denounce their memberships in such groups (one or a couple of months) after which they would be excommunicated if they did not comply. The Bishop issued a warm and heartfelt invitation to those who chose not to comply to change their minds, repent, and come back to the True Faith. He has stood since then with his arms wide open awaiting the return off all his lost sheep. A truly great man.