Vatican criticizes fence?

[Julianna]

Fremont,
I’ve no doubt that my Bishop is more highly informed than you. You sound extremly arrogent by saying that my Bishop is “misinformed at best”. What a disrespectful thing to say!

This site certainly has many people who know better than our Bishops!

Well there could be a reason for that…

We live in the “real” world.

Remember, the Bishops put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you.

 

[Kendy]

I suggest you have missed the point.

From what I have seen in this thread there has been little or no criticism of the Church. There has been much criticism of some cardinals and bishops – that is, individuals.

Criticism of those cardinals and bishops is appropriate. They are wrong. They cannot be trusted. They do not speak for the Church – but rather only their own disgusting perspective.

Rejecting the opinions of these renegades is not a criticism of the Church.

I have not seen a shred of evidence that the these bishops and cardinals are regenegade. The cardinals and the bishops are not only part of the church, but they represent the church’s teaching authority. And unless they are contradicting established church teaching, I believe that we are called to obey them. It is a mistake that we are called to listen only to the pope and ignore everyone else. We are called to obey ALL our prelates as long as they are in communion with Rome, and on this issue, no one has contradicted Rome.

I can’t think of a larger immigrant activitist group in this country besides the catholic church. Besides the numerous pastoral proclamations of the bishops and cardinals, they are several catholic organizations working on this issue. There is a group of priest called “priest for justice” which regularly participates in marches and other pro-immigrant activities. Almost every catholic diocese has a link to the “Justice for immigrant website,” which is an umbrella organization for several catholic pro-immigrant organizations.

One would think if these priests, bishops, and cardinals were such renegade, there would hvae been at least a comment by this and the last pope condemning these activities. Yet, there has been no condemnation. In fact this speech by pope John Paul II is regularly quoted by pro-immigrant advocates. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

As someone who wasn’t sure what to think about this issue, reading this speech by Pope John Paul helped shaped my opinion.

Kendy

P.S. I think it’s important to realize that pro-immigration does not mean pro illegal immigration. Almost everyone agree that illegal immigration is a problem. Where pro-immigration advocates differ, including the USCCB, is that we believe that the United States has a responsibility to reform its policies to make legal immigration and residency for the millions of people whose labors are exploited by a failed immigration policy.

 

[Kendy]

Well there could be a reason for that…

We live in the “real” world.

Remember, the Bishops put their pants on one leg at a time, just like you.

It’s not the bishop’s pants I am concerned about, it’s his charism from God.

 

[Julianna]

I have not seen a shred of evidence that the these bishops and cardinals are regenegade. The cardinals and the bishops are not only part of the church, but they represent the church’s teaching authority. And unless they are contradicting established church teaching, I believe that we are called to obey them. It is a mistake that we are called to listen only to the pope and ignore everyone else. We are called to obey ALL our prelates as long as they are in communion with Rome, and on this issue, no one has contradicted Rome.

I can’t think of a larger immigrant activitist group in this country besides the catholic church. Besides the numerous pastoral proclamations of the bishops and cardinals, they are several catholic organizations working on this issue. There is a group of priest called “priest for justice” which regularly participates in marches and other pro-immigrant activities. Almost every catholic diocese has a link to the “Justice for immigrant website,” which is an umbrella organization for several catholic pro-immigrant organizations.

One would think if these priests, bishops, and cardinals were such renegade, there would hvae been at least a comment by this and the last pope condemning these activities. Yet, there has been no condemnation. In fact this speech by pope John Paul II is regularly quoted by pro-immigrant advocates. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

As someone who wasn’t sure what to think about this issue, reading this speech by Pope John Paul helped shaped my opinion.

Kendy

P.S. I think it’s important to realize that pro-immigration does not mean pro illegal immigration. Almost everyone agree that illegal immigration is a problem. Where pro-immigration advocates differ, including the USCCB, is that we believe that the United States has a responsibility to reform its policies to make legal immigration and residency for the millions of people whose labors are exploited by a failed immigration policy.

What’s with the word “obey”?

Also, the fence is to stop “illegal Immigration”…which is what we are all posting about.

 

[Julianna]

It’s not the bishop’s pants I am concerned about, it’s his charism from God.

Oh, so they aren’t human anymore and they can’t make mistakes? hmmm…I didn’t get that memo.

 

[Kendy]

I want to encourage everyone to read this speech on immigration by Pope John Paul.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international cooperation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.

1. The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant; in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common justice. “God shows no partiality, but in every nation one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35)…

Solidarity means taking responsibility for those in trouble. For Christians, the migrant is not merely an individual to be respected in accordance with the norms established by law, but a person whose presence challenges them and whose needs become an obligation for their responsibility. “What have you done to your brother?” (Cf. Gen 4:9). The answer should not be limited to what is imposed by law, but should be made in the manner of solidarity.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

What’s with the word “obey”?

Also, the fence is to stop “illegal Immigration”…which is what we are all posting about.

We all know what the word obey means. What exactly is your question.

As for the fence, I don’t have any strong opinions about it. I love and respect every member of our magisterium and will not use a public forum to insult them. In the same way, I would not use a public forum to insult a member of my family. I don’t know if the cardinal is right or wrong practically about the fence, but he is certainly not a renegade and has not contradicted church teaching.

What I am more concerned about is the reformation of US policies to faciliate legal immigration so that the number of people who can migrate legally is equivalent to the demand of labor.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Oh, so they aren’t human anymore and they can’t make mistakes? hmmm…I didn’t get that memo.

I didn’t say they were infallible, but they are entitled to our respect and assent unless they prove themselves unworthy. I don’t think the bishops have done that.

More importantly, because they have a special charism from God, we should be ready to consider their opinion before our own. This of course, does not mean we stop thinking, but that we not treat the opinions of our bishops the way we treat the opinions of our neighbor. Sally.

In another tread, an Eastern Orthodox Christian said that one of the hindrances to unity with catholics is that we don’t respect or listen to our bishops. And while I don’t know to what extent it is a cause of disunity, I do think it’s a problem.

Kendy

P.S. Your attitude and that of many other on this thread suggest that you don’t believe that the bishop’s charism amounts to anything. I feel like some conservatives catholics believe that the bishops are simply the pope’s puppet and unless they are quoting the pope word for word, they should shut the clap traps. If we are going to treat our bishops as if they are irrelevant, why have bishops. Why don’t we have a church with just the pope and some priest to say mass and skip all the rest.

 

[Julianna]

We all know what the word obey means. What exactly is your question.

As for the fence, I don’t have any strong opinions about it. I love and respect every member of our magisterium and will not use a public forum to insult them. In the same way, I would not use a public forum to insult a member of my family. I don’t know if the cardinal is right or wrong practically about the fence, but he is certainly not a renegade and has not contradicted church teaching.

What I am more concerned about is the reformation of US policies to faciliate legal immigration so that the number of people who can migrate legally is equivalent to the demand of labor.

Kendy

There is no insult…just a different opinion in that the cardinals and bishops could be wrong. We “can” say that. It’s called “freedom of speech”. My point is that they are human beings and do make mistakes. I think for myself,…I don’t stand on every word a bishop or cardinal says…I listen and form my own opinion. Freemont…has the right to disagree and she/he has a right to “think” “suppose” “theorize” that “some” may be renegades.

I guess I am too much of American to make you understand.

 

[Kendy]

There is no insult…just a different opinion in that the cardinals and bishops could be wrong. We “can” say that. It’s called “freedom of speech”. My point is that they are human beings and do make mistakes. I think for myself,…I don’t stand on every word a bishop or cardinal says…I listen and form my own opinion. Freemont…has the right to disagree and she/he has a right to “think” “suppose” “theorize” that “some” may be renegades.

I guess I am too much of American to make you understand.

First of all, there has been several insulting comments made on this thread.

Second, It has nothing with you being too much of an America, If you think that I have in anyway infringed on anyone constitutional right to free speech, then you are the one who does not understand the first amendment. As an America, I will defend Freemont right to criticize the church until his face his blue in that if he criticizes the church, the US govt. should not stifle that speech. But as an American, I also have every right to criticize him for criticizing the church. No one’s free speech right have been impeded here. The question is not what we are free to say as Americans, but the reverence we are called to have as catholics.

Kendy

Kendy

 

[Lance]

Cardinal Renato Martino should spend more time on the Vatican’s problems like pedophile priests, the politicians who refuse to follow church teaching yet call themselves Catholic and the empty churches in Europe and less time on America’s right to protect itself.

 

[Durendin]

Cardinal Renato Martino should spend more time on the Vatican’s problems like pedophile priests, the politicians who refuse to follow church teaching yet call themselves Catholic and the empty churches in Europe and less time on America’s right to protect itself.

I would happily defend the right of the Vatican or any Cardinal to hold a view or opinion of anything as I would anyone else, but I’m sure their opinion would hold more weight and carry greater respect if they had addressed the issues you raise.

 

[rpp]

Cardinal Renato Martino should spend more time on the Vatican’s problems like pedophile priests, the politicians who refuse to follow church teaching yet call themselves Catholic and the empty churches in Europe and less time on America’s right to protect itself.

Cardinal Renato Martino is the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. It is appropriate for him to comment on these types of issues.

Cardinal Cladio Hummes OFM, Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, and Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops who seem to be more involved in the clergy sex-abuse problems. Also Cardinal William Levada, who recently suceeded the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now Pope, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith also seems to have some (name removed by moderator)ut in the priest sex scandal.

There are probably some other Pontifical Councils or some other part of the Roman Curia that may also be involved, I do not know.

 

[Lance]

I would happily defend the right of the Vatican or any Cardinal to hold a view or opinion of anything as I would anyone else, but I’m sure their opinion would hold more weight and carry greater respect if they had addressed the issues you raise.

Cardinal Renato Martino is the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. It is appropriate for him to comment on these types of issues.

Cardinal Cladio Hummes OFM, Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, and Cardinal Giovanni Batista Re the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops who seem to be more involved in the clergy sex-abuse problems. Also Cardinal William Levada, who recently suceeded the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger now Pope, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith also seems to have some (name removed by moderator)ut in the priest sex scandal.

There are probably some other Pontifical Councils or some other part of the Roman Curia that may also be involved, I do not know.

You are right that he has the right to comment on the fence. He has that right due mainly to American military force. I would think that all Cardinals would be concerned with pedophilia, CINO politicians and the secularization of Europe more than any country rightly defending it’s borders.

I stand by my earlier statement.

 

[Ituyu]

You are right that he has the right to comment on the fence. He has that right due mainly to American military force. I would think that all Cardinals would be concerned with pedophilia, CINO politicians and the secularization of Europe more than any country rightly defending it’s borders.

I stand by my earlier statement.

Clearly the actions of pedophile priests and those bishops guilty of covering their deeds were wrong! Their actions cannot be reconciled with Church Teachings. However, that is the same thing that is wrong with what some espouse on this thread. They have consistently failed to show how their cause is reconcilable with Church Teaching of Social Justice, Love, the Dignity of Man or Human Rights, etc. etc.

 

[Fremont]

First of all, there has been several insulting comments made on this thread.

Second, It has nothing with you being too much of an America, If you think that I have in anyway infringed on anyone constitutional right to free speech, then you are the one who does not understand the first amendment. As an America, I will defend Freemont right to criticize the church until his face his blue in that if he criticizes the church, the US govt. should not stifle that speech. But as an American, I also have every right to criticize him for criticizing the church. No one’s free speech right have been impeded here. The question is not what we are free to say as Americans, but the reverence we are called to have as catholics.

Kendy

Kendy

First of all I would like to make it clear that I have never criticized the Church in any post in this thread or elsewhere in this forum.

I have criticized some cardinals and bishops. I am very disappointed and disillusioned by the behavior and comments of many or our cardinals and bishops and have little respect for them. Reasons have been posted in various threads and no need to repeat them again here.

I struggle every day to keep my faith in the Church in spite of the conduct of such cardinals and bishops. I keep telling myself that the Church is the truth and these are just men, fallible men.

Some seem to be offended by any criticism of our clergy, particularly cardinals and bishops.

I suggest I am not alone. Anyone can find more information right here in Catholic Answers. Look at the Catholic Answers magazine “This Rock” published earlier this year – specifically the article entitled:

Why Doesn’t the Pope Do Something about Bad Bishops?

There are also numerous commentaries about bad bishops available at VOTF and SNAP, plus the various press reports with comments by victims of our clergy.

To me likely the biggest tragedy is the many sincere Catholics who have left the faith because of their disillusionment and disgust caused by behavior of our clergy.

 

[Ituyu]

First of all I would like to make it clear that I have never criticized the Church in any post in this thread or elsewhere in this forum.

Yet I have never seen how your cause is consistent with Church Teachings that have been taught long before the Scandal. I fail to see how being true to the Church, which is what the bishops are doing when they speak to the issue of the “illegal”, is wrong. Had those involved with the causes of the scandal not betrayed what we’ve been taught, there would be no scandal. It would be scandalous today if the bishops looked the other way concerning the “illegal”. The Church Teaches us that coming here to work, even “illegally”, is not inherently wrong. In fact, the “illegal” are following their moral obligation to survive and provide for their dependents. Clearly the vast majority of the 12 million “illegal” in our midst have acted consistent with the Human Rights that the Church recognizes in ALL persons.

 

[Fremont]

Yet I have never seen how your cause is consistent with Church Teachings that have been taught long before the Scandal. I fail to see how being true to the Church, which is what the bishops are doing when they speak to the issue of the “illegal”, is wrong. Had those involved with the causes of the scandal not betrayed what we’ve been taught, there would be no scandal. It would be scandalous today if the bishops looked the other way concerning the “illegal”. The Church Teaches us that coming here to work, even “illegally”, is not inherently wrong. In fact, the “illegal” are following their moral obligation to survive and provide for their dependents. Clearly the vast majority of the 12 million “illegal” in our midst have acted consistent with the Human Rights that the Church recognizes in ALL persons.

 

[rpp]

Yet I have never seen how your cause is consistent with Church Teachings that have been taught long before the Scandal. I fail to see how being true to the Church, which is what the bishops are doing when they speak to the issue of the “illegal”, is wrong. Had those involved with the causes of the scandal not betrayed what we’ve been taught, there would be no scandal. It would be scandalous today if the bishops looked the other way concerning the “illegal”. The Church Teaches us that coming here to work, even “illegally”, is not inherently wrong.

 

[Fremont]

I do not believe the highlighted statement is entirely accurate. The church teaches that we are to obey just civil laws. That we should not violate those civil laws unless there is a great need, and that, in governments like our, we should work to change unjust laws.

The church **does not **teach it is right to pick and choose which civil laws you will obey. A few, but by all means not all, bishops are encouraging changes to existing im,migration laws. However, only some radical bishops are encouraging the anarchy of violating laws. Personally I think they are wrong because that attitude directly leads to the exploitation of the very people they are claiming to help.

Another point is that bishops are not infallible. There have been many instances of bishops publicaly criticizing other bishops both in personal as well as ecclesial conduct. For example several bishops publicly criticized Bishop Bruskewitz for excommunicating member of certain schismatic and anti0Catholic groups like Catholic for Choice. When *Humanae Vitae *was published by Pope Paul VI several bishops immediatly (within 48 hours) participated and instigated numerous public protests, in some cases it was a bishop who initiated contact with the news media to state they disagreed with the Pope. There are many instances in Church history of bishops acting improperly and adopting wrong, even grossly wrong, attitudes, opinions and doctrines.

We are bound to respect and obey bishops, but not blindly. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said, “When the Faith and souls are at stake it may be necessary to correct bishops, even publicly.”

Thank you for a very good post.