F
FAB
Guest
Ender, you need to go back and read about the responsibilty of the laity and the responsibility of the bishops. What you are spouting is just wrong.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe the problem here is the meaning of the word authoritatively. Bishops can speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. That’s one kind of authority.
They also have the authority to speak for the Church as a temporal institution. Legally, they repersent the Church in the civil world. They are the legal representatives of the Church. In addition, according to law, every bishop owns his diocese. The Church is an S-Corporation. The local bishop is the sole-proprietor. Therefore, he can speak for his dioceses on all legal and political matters.
When the bishops gather as a conference and agree to vote on something, even those bishops who voted against it, are bound to the outcome of the vote. A good example was when the bishops voted that no one should receive honors if they were abortion proponents. Catholics could not say that they were not bound to it, because their bishop did not vote for that rule. The rule was voted on and passed. All dioceses were bound to it.
Finally, bishops can speak on political matters. In the rite of ordination they are given the power to do so. There have been extensive discussions and studies on whether or not the term “govern” should be defined and limited to faith and morals. The Vatican has opposed doing so. If we follow the old axiom that the Church prays as she believes, then we must accept the Sacrament of Holy Orders as it is.
No one is saying that a bishop is always going to govern perfectly. There is no such thing as a perfect government. But that does not take away their authority to govern.
The Federal Government does not govern perfectly. But we can’t take away its authority to govern.
If you are employed by a diocese or volunteer in a diocese, you are bound to the laws and directions of the bishop in all matters that pertain to his diocese. Your only choice is to resign. Like any other organization, you cannot insist on your right to work or volunteer in a diocese on your terms. The bishop cannot ask you to sin. Everything else, he can demand.
I know this as religious. When we go into a diocese, we are bound to observe the rules of the local bishop, even though he has no jurisdiction over our houses and our institutions. But when we’re in his parishes, his schools, his minsitries, he’s the boss. If we disagree, our major superior has to mediate with him. If the bishop stands firm on his position, the major superior has two choices: order his men to do as they are told by the bishop or leave all diocesan ministries.
Not everyone agrees with the healthcare proposal as it is written. But every deacon, priest, religious and lay person who works for the diocese or volunteers in the diocese must deliver the message as it was given to us or resign.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Disciple96
Guest
Maybe it’s just me, but the bishops seemed to leave their message vague enough to leave it up to the laity and politicians to implement the plan, while saying what they are bound and obligated to say as bishops: that those who govern should do so in a way that takes into consideration those who are governed and the good of those who are governed.
Who would suggest that a shepherd has nothing to say to his flock about their lives outside the walls of the local parish building? Who would suggest that our Christianity has no place in our lives or in our politics? The Constitution was not written in such a way as to make us schizophrenics, splitting ourselves into arbitrary boxes: this is my religious self, this is my political self, and this is the part of me that tosses all of that into the dustbin and will do whatever I please no matter who says anything about it.
Time for Catholic Christians to realize that the way of discipleship affects each and every part of our lives. There is no part of our lives that the Church has nothing to do with. There is no part of me that isn’t part of the Body of Christ.
So I don’t have a problem with the bishops’ statement. I don’t think it sounds like they like the current plan at all. I think they are doing what they can. We should do all that we can too, and part of what we can do is stop fighting each other and fighting them and stand together to defeat a plan that was designed not to help people but to overload an already overloaded system and make the biggest power grab this country has ever seen.
Who would suggest that a shepherd has nothing to say to his flock about their lives outside the walls of the local parish building? Who would suggest that our Christianity has no place in our lives or in our politics? The Constitution was not written in such a way as to make us schizophrenics, splitting ourselves into arbitrary boxes: this is my religious self, this is my political self, and this is the part of me that tosses all of that into the dustbin and will do whatever I please no matter who says anything about it.
Time for Catholic Christians to realize that the way of discipleship affects each and every part of our lives. There is no part of our lives that the Church has nothing to do with. There is no part of me that isn’t part of the Body of Christ.
So I don’t have a problem with the bishops’ statement. I don’t think it sounds like they like the current plan at all. I think they are doing what they can. We should do all that we can too, and part of what we can do is stop fighting each other and fighting them and stand together to defeat a plan that was designed not to help people but to overload an already overloaded system and make the biggest power grab this country has ever seen.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that your point is well made. I didn’t see a plan in the bishop’s statement. What I saw was simply a statement that says that you cannot make healthcare reform that pays for abortion.
That being said, you’re right. We cannot rule the bishops and the Church out of our political lives. For one thing, we can’t compartamentalize ourselves that way. Another is the fact the the bishops are also citizens and they represent a very large constituency. They have a Divine Right to govern in the secular sphere. As I posted several times. We would have to change the rite of ordination of a bishop to take that right away from them. Whether they choose to use it and when they choose to use it is up to them. We cannot deny them the right to use it. They have the right to tell Catholics what the Church believes is best.
We have to remember that the universal Church leaves a lot of decisions to the national conferences. We have to be gentler in our disagreements with the USCCB. They do have many rights that are given to them by the Vatican. Often the Vatican does not tell the man in the pew about these rights. It just does it and moves on, expecting us to tow the line. Sometimes our reaction to the Conference is less than gentle, as if they were our enemies. But we must never forget that they are the only connection that we have with the Chuch. If you do not have a bishop, you do not have a Church, not matter how many believers you have. It is not the believers who have the succession, but the bishops. Even when we disagree with them, we must always do so gracefully out of reverence for their role and for the fact that they are unlike the rest of us. I believe that we sometimes forget that a man who is ordained a bishop is no longer like the rest of us. He has undergone an ontological change. His intellect and free will remain the same, but his soul is very different from our own.
I always like to compare the bishops to a Church building. It may be ugliest building or the most dilapidated building in the world, but it remains sacred space. A bishop may be completely wrong on an issue, but he remains an apostle. When I disagree with an apostle I keep in mind who it is that I’m disagreeing with and make sure that my manner of expression is graceful and gentle. I try very hard to remember that he has rights as an apostle, even if I disagree with what he’s saying. I cannot deny his rights or exert mine over his. We are not a Church of equals. We are a monarchial Church. We share in the dignity of the sons and daugters of God, but not in the other dignities. A good example is parents and children.
Members of a family have human dignity. But children are not parents and do not have the same dignity as parents nor are they allowed to speak to parents inappropriately, even if they are right and parents are wrong. That just raises the discourse to another level. At that point you are no longer discussing the rightness or wrongness of an idea, but you have raised the discussion to “Who’s the boss?” In that case, authority is always in charge.
We have to disagree gently, if we’re going to disagree at all and we have to make sure that we know the rights of each person.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Stylites
Guest
While liberals are often “cafeteria Catholics” for their famously picking and choosing of which matters of faith and morals to adhere to, conservatives don’t have this particular spiritual problem when the issue is merely policy recommendations. In other words, the principles never change, but the recommended policies might, and Catholics are not sinning in disagreeing with policies, whereas liberals do when they disagree with Catholic principles. Nice try, though.
.
S
Stylites
Guest
Who claims that bishops are “governing”? Are you trying to claim that they don’t have a 1st Amendment right to free speech?!
J
JReducation
Guest
During the rite of ordination of a bishop this prayer is said over the bishop elect as part of the ordination prayer.
From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation. You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you. From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.
When asked to define “rulers” the Holy See refused to limit the authority of bishops to rule only in ecclesial circles. Pope Paul VI would not do so. According to New Advent, theologians have debated this point and the Church has ruled against those who want to limit the ruling power of a bishop to ecclesial matters.
We have to go with the rite of ordination. We may disagree with the ruler, but we have to do so with gentleness, respect and always acknowledging that he is exercising his rights, because he has been chosen by Christ to occupy that role in the Church.
My point is not that the bishops are righ or wrong, but that we’re wrong in questioning their right to talk authoritatively for Catholics. They do have that right.
I have to admit, that it creates an interesting situation on an issue like this where Catholics don’t all agree. My suggestion is to tread gently.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
From the beginning you chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation. You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you. From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen.
When asked to define “rulers” the Holy See refused to limit the authority of bishops to rule only in ecclesial circles. Pope Paul VI would not do so. According to New Advent, theologians have debated this point and the Church has ruled against those who want to limit the ruling power of a bishop to ecclesial matters.
We have to go with the rite of ordination. We may disagree with the ruler, but we have to do so with gentleness, respect and always acknowledging that he is exercising his rights, because he has been chosen by Christ to occupy that role in the Church.
My point is not that the bishops are righ or wrong, but that we’re wrong in questioning their right to talk authoritatively for Catholics. They do have that right.
I have to admit, that it creates an interesting situation on an issue like this where Catholics don’t all agree. My suggestion is to tread gently.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
There were a couple of posts that spoke of bishops governing; that was my response to those posts. I certainly feel that bishops have first amendment rights.
J
JReducation
Guest
I was one of the people who posted on the bishops’ right to govern beyond ecclesial matters. I took it from the ordination of the bishop. As I posted above, the meaning of this prayer has been debated back and forth by theologians for a very long time. The Vatican always rules in favor of the bishops’ right to govern in a brader sphere than just faith and morals.
It is true that this power is rarely used, but it continues to be part of the authority of a bishop. For this reason I always encourage people to tread gently when they disagree with the bishops. You don’t want to find yourself outside of the faith of the Church, which is best expressed in her sacraments.
When we say that we believe that a bishop posesses the fullness of the priesthood and that he receives the authoritative spirit that Jesus gave to his apostles, we are saying that we believe that Christ shared the fullness of his authority with the apostles and that it has been handed down to the bishops of today through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
We also have to be very careful never to deny someone their rights, because we disagree with them. As I said before, we may disagree with the Federal Government on many issues, especially this one, but we cannot deny its right to govern. The same applies to the bishops. We can disagree, but we cannot deny what the Church beleives and teaches through the sacraments. If we begin to interpret the words of the sacrament of Holy Orders according to our understanding, rather than letting the Church do that, then we run the risk of doing what the Anglican Church did, the laity runs the church and the bishops are their employees. This has brought the house down on the Anglicans and Episcopalians.
If you must disagree, do so gently and never deny what is taught through the sacraments.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
It is true that this power is rarely used, but it continues to be part of the authority of a bishop. For this reason I always encourage people to tread gently when they disagree with the bishops. You don’t want to find yourself outside of the faith of the Church, which is best expressed in her sacraments.
When we say that we believe that a bishop posesses the fullness of the priesthood and that he receives the authoritative spirit that Jesus gave to his apostles, we are saying that we believe that Christ shared the fullness of his authority with the apostles and that it has been handed down to the bishops of today through the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
We also have to be very careful never to deny someone their rights, because we disagree with them. As I said before, we may disagree with the Federal Government on many issues, especially this one, but we cannot deny its right to govern. The same applies to the bishops. We can disagree, but we cannot deny what the Church beleives and teaches through the sacraments. If we begin to interpret the words of the sacrament of Holy Orders according to our understanding, rather than letting the Church do that, then we run the risk of doing what the Anglican Church did, the laity runs the church and the bishops are their employees. This has brought the house down on the Anglicans and Episcopalians.
If you must disagree, do so gently and never deny what is taught through the sacraments.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
crazzeto
Guest
Even if the House Bill had a public option, in what way does that violate the Catholic Moral teaching? As Catholics we should always strive to live up to the rather lofty moral obligations Christ asked of us. Particularly relevent to this discussion is Matthew 25 31-46 drbo.org/chapter/47025.htm.
It may or may not be that a public option (which the House bill does not have) would be the best way for us to come close to living this teaching as a nation. At the end of the day the lack of presense of a public option shouldn’t be the number one issue to consider when looking at these bills (though by all means, if you don’t like that idea don’t support a bill that has it). The number 1 issue is does the bill support abortion or does it not support abortion.
Due to the heroic efforts of Michigan Rep. Bart Stupack (D) we as Catholic should be supporting this version of Heath Care over the disastrous Senate version if we’re to have any heath reform at all.
It may or may not be that a public option (which the House bill does not have) would be the best way for us to come close to living this teaching as a nation. At the end of the day the lack of presense of a public option shouldn’t be the number one issue to consider when looking at these bills (though by all means, if you don’t like that idea don’t support a bill that has it). The number 1 issue is does the bill support abortion or does it not support abortion.
Due to the heroic efforts of Michigan Rep. Bart Stupack (D) we as Catholic should be supporting this version of Heath Care over the disastrous Senate version if we’re to have any heath reform at all.
J
JReducation
Guest
The question that concerns the Catholic Church is whether the merger of the two bills, House and Senate, is going to eliminate the Stupack Ammendment. If it does, then the Bill is morally objectionable and we cannot support it.
At this point the economic concerns and the implementation of universal healthcare are not the top priority. You have to protect human life from conception to natural death first. When the law secures the right to be born and to die a spontaneous death, then we can discuss how much will it cost, how do we implement healthcare reform and who is responsible for what part. But those questions become moot issues until the dignity of human life is guarranteed. That’s all that the Church is asking. “Guarrantee the dignity of the unborn, elderly and those with chronic illnesses.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t believe this is true. No bishop has authority over any other bishop and I don’t believe that any collection of bishops short of a council has that authority either.
The question is not whether they are authorized to speak out but whether we are obligated to accede to their prudential opinions.
"48. But in matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful. Those, therefore, whose piety is in other respects known, and whose minds are ready to accept in all obedience the decrees of the apostolic see, cannot in justice be accounted as bad men because they disagree as to subjects We have mentioned; and still graver wrong will be done them, if - as We have more than once perceived with regret - they are accused of violating, or of wavering in, the Catholic faith." (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei)
- “There can be a legitimate difference of opinion on particular points and on the ways of reaching a common goal…” *(JPII, General Audience, 1991)
I don’t know whether this is true or not, but if it is then, if I was a volunteer, I would resign before doing something I felt was wrong. Beyond his rights over those who work for the diocese, however, his political opinions carry no authority.
Ender
J
JReducation
Guest
There are two things that need clarification here.
- When a conference of bishops agrees to follow the outcome of a vote that they take, those bishops who are on the losing side must comply with the voting. A perfect example of this was the translation of the liturgy. There were bishops who said that it was a violation of canon law to give the Sacred Congregation the authority to finish the job. The argument was actually true. It is a violation of canon law. However, the conference was able to get around that because the Sacred Congregation authorized them to do so. What happened was that those bishops who disagreed, had to go with the decision of the group and give the rest of the job to the Sacred Congregation. This is not the same as one bishop holding authority over another. These are agreements reached before voting. The same happened when the bishops agreed to allow the conference to speak for them on the healthcare issue.
- As to employees, clergy, religious and volunteers in any diocese, we must always remember that the bishop is the sole proprietor of the diocese. According to canon law and civil law, he owns the diocese. Like any other CEO, he can command his employees and volunteers according to his wishes. If they do not agree, they have to appeal to him. If the appeal falls through, they have to comply or leave. This is one reason that many religious orders of men are no longer taking new parishes. If the bishop does not agree with the conditions set by the major superior, they have no choice but to leave. No one can refuse to carry out the orders of a bishop. It is also true that a bishop cannot order anyone to commit a sin. But the question is always the same. Who defines sin? According to moral law, the only person who can define sin is the giver of the law, that would be the Church. Since reading this statement is not a sinful act, those who volunteer or work for a diocese can only decline, if there is an allowance for it.
Normally, these things can be ironed out very easily, but the Internet is not the place to do it and forums are among the worse place to go for advice, because there is an overwhelming amount of opinions. Sometimes people get more confused than they were before they posted their question. This is the kind of question that I would suggest that a person take to the pastor. Most pastors whom I know will simply find someone else to read it. They don’t have the time to or the interest in persuading anyone to do something like this, when it can be resolved very easily by finding someone else. Most pastors want to comply with the diocese, not get into a discussion about the merits of this announcement.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
FAB
Guest
There’s not enough space or time. besides what Br. JR, OSF is dead on and you should take to heart what he is writing, it’s not opinion, it’s Church teaching.
E
Ender
Guest
A bishop can only commit himself to follow the outcome of a vote; he cannot be compelled by the USCCB. Here is a statement from Bishop Martino of Scranton that goes right to the point at issue:
“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese …There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”
Two points here: first, I don’t believe there was ever a vote by the bishops to accept a particular document on health care and I’m quite sure they didn’t give open ended approval to whatever document was promulgated by a committee within the USCCB. Second, it wouldn’t matter if they did. It is irrelevant how many bishops share the same prudential opinion; prudential opinions are never binding.
Just so. Refusing to read it would likely bring no repercussion but it would serve the purpose of causing the priest to give some thought to what is or is not proper not only for himself but for the bishop.
Ender
F
FAB
Guest
Try reading all of
www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
for a start, then find some related books on the Church concerning the docement, and then compenduim on Canon law.
It’s your job as a Catholic to educate yourself.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is the crux of the problem right here. You are assuming that lay people, religious and clerics can tell a bishop what is and is not proper. This is not always the case. Some bishops are more open to this than others. I’ll give you an example. Every diocese must have a priest senate. However, I know of at least one bishop who tells the senate what he wants and if they don’t vote the way he wants, he vetoes the senate. Canon law supports him.
I think the point that is being missed here is that a bishop OWNS the diocese. He is actually the proprietor of every piece of property that has the diocese’s name on it. He is the final authority in every ministry that bears the diocesan name. Every secular priest and deacon is bound to obey him. Religioius brothers and sisters who work for the diocese must do what they are told (within the ministry) or leave their posts. Lay employees and volunteers are subject to the same rules as religious brothers and sisters.
The sense that I’m getting here is one of entitlement. We say that we want a strong Catholic Church, but we want to have rights that are not ours to be had. And we want to deny authority the rights that it has.
The bishop who made the statement that the conference has no authority in his diocese is canonically correct. However, such a statement also creates a breach of trust. Do we want our bishops not trusting each other? If they vote on something and someone decides that he is going in another direction, because he did not vote that way, is this good leadership? In addition to this, there are canonical rights that the law gives to the national conferences. National conferences are not just advisory. They do have certain authority and influence. This is not a behavior that I would hold of as worthy of admiration. Afterall, agreements are agreements.
As to volunteers in a parish, it is the job of the pastor to decide how much room he allows for dissent. I have known pastors at both ends of the spectrum. I don’t believe that either end is prudent. But I’m not the pastor. Some allow no room and dismiss volunteers at the drop of a hat and others allow too much room and allow all kinds of nonsense.
The question that was posed here was whether the poster had to read the announcement. The answer to that is with the pastor. The pastor does not have much room for negotiation, if the announcement comes to him from the chancery, even though it was written by the conference. If the chancery says that it must be read, the pastor must comply. A parishioner who tells the pastor every possible reason why this is a bad idea, has the right to do that. But it does not change the pastor’s obligation to the chancery. The announcement must be read or a call must be made to the Chancellor explaining the problem. Then it is up to the Chacellor to dictate what is to be done. If the pastor is unhappy with the answer, he can then take it up with the bishop. The point is that pastors and parishioners cannot ignore the Ordinary’s directives and believe that life goes on. Some bishops will come down on you very hard. Others may just blow you off and ignore the whole thing. But you never know until you try to ignore the bishop. It’s not a position that I would recommend to anyone. It’s bad advice.
Good advice is, tread gently, take it up with the pastor and see what he says. Usually, if you approach a pastor in a gentle manner and explain that you have a problem with the request, he’ll let you off the hook and find someone else. But remember, pastors are human beings. Human beings have long memories. If your parish is run by either a religiuos order or a religious congregation, there are other expectations with which the laity has to comply, becaue the bishop promised this to the major superior when they agreed to take over the parish. Again, the best advice is avoid an attitude and tread gently and politely. You’ll get a lot further.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status