USCCB Pulpit Announcement - help! Not sure I can read it

[Ender]

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.

Not exactly. Again, this statement is too vague and may be true or false depending on its context. I understand that within his diocese the bishop’s vote is the only one that counts; others may advise but he alone decides. The issue raised relates to the bishop’s authority in secular affairs, not in clerical ones. It is my position that, in defending a particular approach to health care, bishops step over the line. Mr. Chaput may take whatever political positions he wants but Archbishop Chaput cannot.

The bishop who made the statement that the conference has no authority in his diocese is canonically correct.

Good, at least this point is resolved.

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.

This is what I would expect and I would approach it just that way. If, however, he insisted that it was my responsibility alone, I would resign before doing something I thought inappropriate.

Ender

 

[FAB]

Actually, my position was taken from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, the Catechism of Trent and notes from the Council of Ephesus. I’m sure if you read through them you’ll find the parts I’m referring to. As you said, it’s your job as a Catholic to educate yourself.

Ender

Lumen Gentium is the constitution of the Church and the most recent document from the most recent council. It is the teaching on the roles of the bishops, priest and laity in the Church.

Peace,
FAB

 

[AnotherVoice]

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.Br. JR, OSF

Brother, I have really appreciated your comments in this thread. While I may not agree with all the comments you make; they have introduced a new perspective to me and on some points changed my mind.

I do feel a sense of entitlement - to be able to have a difference of opinion with my bishop. I don’t feel that his opinions or everything the bishop says are things that I must abide by. A bishop can be wrong.

For example let’s “assume” that the abortion provisions and conscience protection measures in the pending health legislation are resolved with very strong language and everyone is happy about it. Let’s then further “assume” (I know big word used twice) that my bishop is then in favor of the bill; and I am not. I am going to speak out against the bill.

I certainly am not searching for a confrontation with the church and I do want the church to be much more firm in handling open dissent. At the same time I would hope that a bishop would be sensitive to separating his personal opinions from church teachings.

 

[Ender]

Lumen Gentium is the constitution of the Church and the most recent document from the most recent council. It is the teaching on the roles of the bishops, priest and laity in the Church.

"The bishop who made the statement that the conference has no authority in his diocese is canonically correct." Br. JR, OSF

Ender

 

[crazzeto]

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

What a wonderful post, thank you so much for taking the time to write this!

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I have really appreciated your comments in this thread. While I may not agree with all the comments you make; they have introduced a new perspective to me and on some points changed my mind.

I do feel a sense of entitlement - to be able to have a difference of opinion with my bishop. I don’t feel that his opinions or everything the bishop says are things that I must abide by. A bishop can be wrong.

For example let’s “assume” that the abortion provisions and conscience protection measures in the pending health legislation are resolved with very strong language and everyone is happy about it. Let’s then further “assume” (I know big word used twice) that my bishop is then in favor of the bill; and I am not. I am going to speak out against the bill.

I certainly am not searching for a confrontation with the church and I do want the church to be much more firm in handling open dissent. At the same time I would hope that a bishop would be sensitive to separating his personal opinions from church teachings.

The entitlement to which I’m referring is the notion that some people have that the laity can speak for the Church. That is not true. The bishops can do so, but not the laity.

As to the bill, once the abortion, euthenasia and other life threatening details are taken out of the bill, Catholics do have a right to exercise their citizenship according to the laws of each country. However, the Church does not recognize that Catholics have the right to deny the voice of the bishop. This is tricky. You are not going to be excommunicated or receive some kind of anathema for disagreeing with a bishop. That is allowed.

What is not allowed is to disobey a bishop on his turf. In other words, any Catholic can say that he resigns from volunteering in his parish or some diocesan ministry, because he disagrees with the bishop’s policy. This is not a sin and is not punishable. But any Catholic who is either an employee or a volunteer in a diocese, must comply with the employer, who is the bishop.

The bishop cannot deny you access to the sacraments, parish and so forth on any matter except faith and morals. But he can demand that all who work for him, either for salary or as volunteers, uphold his position. Rome will always uphold the bishop, unless it can be proven that the bishop has violeted a law of the Church. If one cannot comply, then one must resign the position. You don’t have to leave the Church. That’s not necessary. You just don’t work for the man. It must also be said that most bishops are pretty lenient when disagreements are presented very gently. They may not agree with you, but they won’t hold it against you either. And if you have information that the bishop did not have, they appreciate that you chose to share it.

The entitlement is that some people, I’m not accusing you, want to disagree with the bishops, “cowboy style.” They feel that they can just shout it off the rooftops without regard for the position that the bishop holds in the Church. They feel that the bishops and every other Catholic should be OK with this. This has happened with many extremist groups and they have ended up in trouble.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

"The bishop who made the statement that the conference has no authority in his diocese is canonically correct." Br. JR, OSF

Ender

Wait minute. You used my answer to refute what FAB said about the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. My statement only applies to the local conference, not to the Constitution on the Church. All the bishops are bound to the Constitution on the Church. That is a conciliar decree signed by the Holy Father.

While we’re at it, it must be said that there are rules in Caon Law about the authority that local conferences have over their region. Check them out.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FAB]

"The bishop who made the statement that the conference has no authority in his diocese is canonically correct." Br. JR, OSF

Ender

The statement was released through the local ordinary and he does have the primary teaching authority for his diocese.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Ender]

Wait minute. You used my answer to refute what FAB said about the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

No. I have never made any comment on this topic other than that the USCCB has no authority over any bishop. FAB implied that there was something in the Dogmatic Constitution that said otherwise and I challenged him to cite it. There was never a question of whether a bishop is bound by Church law.

My statement only applies to the local conference, not to the Constitution on the Church.

I am applying your statement solely to the USCCB.

Ender

 

[FAB]

No. I have never made any comment on this topic other than that the USCCB has no authority over any bishop. FAB implied that there was something in the Dogmatic Constitution that said otherwise and I challenged him to cite it. There was never a question of whether a bishop is bound by Church law.
I am applying your statement solely to the USCCB.

Ender

I never implied that the USCCB had authoity over the local ordianry, however, in practice most American bishops are following thier own decisions which are made through it.

I used the dogamtic constitiution to counter what seemed to be your notion that biships could not or perhaps should not make statements refering to issues outside the church. Your quote was that they should stick with church buisness.
Peace,
FAB

 

[JReducation]

There are situations in which the Conference of Bishops has jurisdiction over an entire region; but certain conditions must be met.

Here is what canon law has to say about this.

**Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.

§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.

§3. The conference of bishops itself determines the manner of promulgation and the time when the decrees take effect.**

It takes 2/3 of the bishops to pass a law, plus the review of the Apostolic See. Once that happens, the local bishop must comply.

This is what many people don’t know. We don’t usually know what decisions of the Conference have been reviewed and approved by the Apostolic See, because they are not bound to tell us. It’s the same with religious orders. Religios orders have certain rights, but they don’t generally share that information with the laity. There is a provision in Church tradition for what is called the internal form. In plain English, it means you don’t need to know and if we decided that you do, we’ll tell you. This has been around for centuries.

This is another good reason for treading gently. Fortunately, ecclesial law is not like civil law. In civil law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. In ecclesial law, ignorance can be a mitigating factor. Very rarely does Church law hold you accountable for what you don’t know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

I used the dogamtic constitiution to counter what seemed to be your notion that biships could not or perhaps should not make statements refering to issues outside the church. Your quote was that they should stick with church buisness.

My point is that, while the line between where a bishop should intervene and where he should not is blurred, it nonetheless exists. In my opinion this announcement crosses that line. It is surely right for them to oppose any health care proposal that promotes abortion or that denies the right of conscience objections, and had they stopped there I’m sure the OP wouldn’t have had any problem reading the document. What they implied, however, was that these few things were all that was wrong with the bill and that, once they were corrected, we should support it. That’s where they crossed the line. It is an abuse of their authority to suggest that we have a moral obligation to support their political views and that is all their support of health care is: a political opinion.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

My point is that, while the line between where a bishop should intervene and where he should not is blurred, it nonetheless exists. In my opinion this announcement crosses that line. It is surely right for them to oppose any health care proposal that promotes abortion or that denies the right of conscience objections, and had they stopped there I’m sure the OP wouldn’t have had any problem reading the document. What they implied, however, was that these few things were all that was wrong with the bill and that, once they were corrected, we should support it. That’s where they crossed the line. It is an abuse of their authority to suggest that we have a moral obligation to support their political views and that is all their support of health care is: a political opinion.

Ender

They never said that we had a moral obligation to support the bill. That’s not what they are asking for. They are asking the the bill not be voted on unless it has the provisions that protect the unborn. After that is corrected. then we can worry about the rest of the bill. Bu the rest of the bill of of little concern to Catholics, until the abortion regulation is thaken care of. It is as Evangelium Vitae says, the number one concern for every Catholic today. Everything else is subordiante to this. If we begin to stretch our focus too far, abortion will be slipped in there without our knowing it.

It is good to save money. It is good to plan ahead. It is good to have a back-up plan and so forth. But none of these goods are the highest good and the good for the whole of society. The protection of the vulnerable is the highest good and the good for the whole of society.

This is a case where the bishops’ conference does not have to get it reviewed by the Apostolic See, because the Apostolic See spoke first on this. The Apostolic See identified this as the highest moral good of today. We have nothing to argue here. When that good is secured, then we can look at the other goods that we want. But if that good is not secured, the other goods will not hold up.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FAB]

My point is that, while the line between where a bishop should intervene and where he should not is blurred, it nonetheless exists. In my opinion this announcement crosses that line. It is surely right for them to oppose any health care proposal that promotes abortion or that denies the right of conscience objections, and had they stopped there I’m sure the OP wouldn’t have had any problem reading the document. What they implied, however, was that these few things were all that was wrong with the bill and that, once they were corrected, we should support it. That’s where they crossed the line. It is an abuse of their authority to suggest that we have a moral obligation to support their political views and that is all their support of health care is: a political opinion.

Ender

What the bishops said in the letter reflects the view of the Church, that all people, just not in the United States, have full access to affordable health care. That is what the bill promises to do. So it is not just a political issue it is a moral and social justice issue, as such the bishops are fully in thier authority to call the faithful to action and to study the bill and it’s effects.

Peace,
FAB

 

[JReducation]

What the bishops said in the letter reflects the view of the Church, that all people, just not in the United States, have full access to affordable health care. That is what the bill promises to do. So it is not just a political issue it is a moral and social justice issue, as such the bishops are fully in thier authority to call the faithful to action and to study the bill and it’s effects.

Peace,
FAB

Healthcare has been covered in several Church documents. The Chruch’s call to universal healthcare is not new.

We don’t have universal healthcare in this country, as we are made to believe. I have a case of my own. My community does not have medical insurance. I have cancer. I applied for state medicaid and was denied, because I don’t have minor children. Every time that I get sick, I have to go to the emergency room. I depend on a very Catholic doctor who provides us with healthcare, free of charge.

Even senior citizens on Medicare don’t have complete coverage. They need supplemental insurance for pharmacy products, which is paid out of their social security check.

There was a very good comment made on Fr. Benedict G’s show last night by him and a physician. Without getting political, they said that medical care in the USA is extremely expensive, compared to other countries and that it is controlled by political, economic and organization forces. They did not go into details to avoid pointing fingers and getting into a politcal discussion. This was not the purpose of the show. But it was an interesting comment.

We do need to raise our voices to ensure that every human being, regardless of his or her legal status in a country, gets healthcare. Healthcare is not the right of citizens. It is the right of human beings. Heck, even pets have a right to healthcare. You don’t take in a pet and let him die when he’s sick. That’s cruel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

They never said that we had a moral obligation to support the bill.

True, they did not say that but it is automatically implied that the bishop is speaking on a moral issue. Since we are obliged to follow his lead on moral issues the implication exists that we should follow his lead on this subject as well. They did not say we had an obligation - which they know would have been false - they implied it, which would be duplicitous if they understood what they were doing.

They are asking the the bill not be voted on unless it has the provisions that protect the unborn. After that is corrected. then we can worry about the rest of the bill.

Again, I strongly disagree. Their instructions contained this statement:

*“The bishops, who have long supported genuine health care reform, will oppose this legislation unless these criteria are met.”

*There is the implication (again) that the *only *thing they oppose in this legislation are those issues they raised about supporting abortion and not having a conscience provision. That was certainly the way my pastor interpreted it. Oh, and this:

*“The U.S. bishops continue to strongly [call] for … access to health care for immigrants.”
*

This is a case where the bishops’ conference does not have to get it reviewed by the Apostolic See, because the Apostolic See spoke first on this. The Apostolic See identified this as the highest moral good of today. We have nothing to argue here.

Yes we do: I feel pretty certain that the Apostolic See has been quiet on the moral obligation of the US to provide “access to health care for immigrants” beyond the access they already have.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What the bishops said in the letter reflects the view of the Church, that all people, just not in the United States, have full access to affordable health care. That is what the bill promises to do. So it is not just a political issue it is a moral and social justice issue, as such the bishops are fully in thier authority to call the faithful to action and to study the bill and it’s effects.

I have doubts about about what the Church actually calls for but my objection here is that the bishops have put their support behind a specific approach which they believe will work. I oppose their approach because I think it not only would not work but would be disastrous. What is implied here is not that I am making a prudential decision about the effectiveness of their plan but that I am rejecting the objectives themselves.

The Church speaks about ends - help the poor - but (properly) she leaves it to the layman to determine what means are best suited to reach those ends. When the bishops specify the means they cross the line.

Ender

 

[FAB]

True, they did not say that but it is automatically implied that the bishop is speaking on a moral issue. Since we are obliged to follow his lead on moral issues the implication exists that we should follow his lead on this subject as well. They did not say we had an obligation - which they know would have been false - they implied it, which would be duplicitous if they understood what they were doing.
Again, I strongly disagree. Their instructions contained this statement:

*“The bishops, who have long supported genuine health care reform, will oppose this legislation unless these criteria are met.”

*There is the implication (again) that the *only *thing they oppose in this legislation are those issues they raised about supporting abortion and not having a conscience provision. That was certainly the way my pastor interpreted it. Oh, and this:

*“The U.S. bishops continue to strongly [call] for … access to health care for immigrants.”
*
Yes we do: I feel pretty certain that the Apostolic See has been quiet on the moral obligation of the US to provide “access to health care for immigrants” beyond the access they already have.

Ender

You need to read the Church documents on Social Justice for the last 100 years perhaps starting with the latest one from Pope Benedict. I quarentee that you will find coming from the US bishops is very much in concert with the Apostolic See, which has been anything but quiet on the rights of immigrants.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Jesus_123]

… Would I be wrong to request that I not be the one to read this? If this was a matter of faith or morals or Church teaching I would read it in a heartbeat because I firmly believe in following the Magisterium and ALL Church teachings on faith and morals, but I think this goes beyond that into politics. I would appreciate your opinions.

usccb.org/healthcare/Abortion_ads/Pulpit_Announcement_and_Prayer.pdf

+And back to Original Poster’s (OP’s) question . . . I believe . . .

**1. **It was essentially really the priest’s responsibility . . . as the shepherd of his flock in the Lord . . . to speak for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) if he wanted to support their statement . . . or if he is obediently obeying his Bishop/Superior if he had been requested that it be read . . . there are some duties that are proper for the priest alone to handle within the Church . . . and he should handle his responsibilities appropriately . . . this being essentially a church hierarchy and policy matter . . . *and very complex and controversial *. . . as far as the material is concerned . . . it appears to be clearly the priest’s duty in this instance . . . and it is really quite unfair to ask a layperson to read such material before the congregation . . . who may have incomplete or no knowledge or understanding of the material to be read . . . and which material the reader would be seen as probably tacitly supporting in the eyes of the parishioners hearing the reading of the notice . . .

2. If someone is asked to do something . . . and they are sincerely uneasy about complying with the request on the grounds of partial or full ignorance of the subject at hand . . . and/or on the grounds of good conscience . . . whether an informed or an uninformed conscience . . . no matter what the request it is . . . absolutely appropriate . . . and can even be essential to spiritual health . . . that they know that they are completely free in such a situation to simply and graciously decline the request on the grounds that they cannot comply with the request in good conscience . . . and they need to stand firm if they truly are not comfortable complying with a request . . . good conscience is very much between you and your Lord **. . . and the formation of good conscience is a continual ongoing process day by day . . . and keeping your actions within the parameters of good conscience is a sound and praiseworthy pathway to follow as you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teachings of Holy Mother Church . . .

I’ve run into a several situations in life . . . some quite serious . . . where I’ve had to just put all my trust in the Lord . . . and have had to just graciously decline to handle something requested by a superior or someone else . . . **on the grounds that in good conscience I could not personally become involved in the situation **. . .

It might be a kindness to the priest . . . if you shared the problematic situation you were thrust into by the request . . . so that perhaps he might think twice before placing another individual in that difficult circumstance in the future . . . ? . . .

*In dedication to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart . . . *

God bless . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . guide and direct+​

 

[AnotherVoice]

2. If someone is asked to do something . . . and they are sincerely uneasy about complying with the request on the grounds of partial or full ignorance of the subject at hand . . . and/or on the grounds of good conscience . . . whether an informed or an uninformed conscience . . . no matter what the request it is . . . absolutely appropriate . . . and can even be essential to spiritual health . . . that they know that they are completely free in such a situation to simply and graciously decline the request on the grounds that they cannot comply with the request in good conscience . . . and they need to stand firm if they truly are not comfortable complying with a request . . . good conscience is very much between you and your Lord **

Perhaps in this situation, partial or full ignorance of the material being addressed would have made it easier for a person to read a position on health care legislation. Once a person spends the time to see what is happening in Washington regarding this legislation, that would be enough to make the subject repulsive to them.