We should eat less to show solidarity with the poor, says cardinal

[vern_humphrey]

Certainly a bishop can “lead, influence, and inspire”. But that can’t effectively command.

He has far more authority than a general, who merely has temporal power. And his immediate subordinates are far more under his control and more dedicated that military officers.

Which is true of armies as well.

In a sense, then, while the Church has a central core of the faith in the episcopate, it is more functionally a bottom-up organization, dependant upon the vast multitude of faithful for it’s success perhaps to a greater degree than the bishops can accomplish

.

Did you mean that as an indictment or an excuse?

Armies depend on the man at the front, the Church depends ultimately on the man or woman in the pew. But both soldier and parishoner depend on the Church to teach and lead.

I often think of the Parable of the Talents – which was told exactly for the situation we’re in. The servant who merely hid the talent entrusted to him was excoriated – the Master expects His servants to make His fortune increase.

[/QUOTE]

 

[chicago]

chicago;1844939:

Certainly a bishop can “lead, influence, and inspire”. But that can’t effectively command.

He has far more authority than a general, who merely has temporal power. And his immediate subordinates are far more under his control and more dedicated that military officers.

I’d disagree about them being “more under his control and more dediated.” That isn’t always the case. Further, if they refuse to “obey orders” what is the bishop to do. He can’t remove a pastor, canonically, and can’t strip them of the priesthood, sending them out on their rears. He’s stuck with what he’s got.

Which is true of armies as well.

A military man has to obey orders or face consequences.

Did you mean that as an indictment or an excuse?

heh, fair shot.

Armies depend on the man at the front, the Church depends ultimately on the man or woman in the pew. But both soldier and parishoner depend on the Church to teach and lead.

I often think of the Parable of the Talents – which was told exactly for the situation we’re in. The servant who merely hid the talent entrusted to him was excoriated – the Master expects His servants to make His fortune increase.

Alas, most bishops aren’t effective leaders. Even when they try to do the right thing, they mostly just get ignored. It takes a certain dynamism to stand out from the averege, and most don’t have it. Which leaves us with a norm, which is only average.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’d disagree about them being “more under his control and more dediated.” That isn’t always the case. Further, if they refuse to “obey orders” what is the bishop to do.

Unlike a general, who has only temporal powers, a bishop’s powers extend to the soul.

He can’t remove a pastor, canonically, and can’t strip them of the priesthood, sending them out on their rears. He’s stuck with what he’s got.

Actually, he can remove a pastor. In this diocese, the Bishop used to routinely reassign priests. He can reassign any priest, if that priest is not cutting the mustor.

And like a general, he must go through a process to do more to the unsatisfactory or disobedient – but he has such processes to hand, just like a general.

A military man has to obey orders or face consequences.

No general can give absolution or retain sin. A bishop can!

Alas, most bishops aren’t effective leaders. Even when they try to do the right thing, they mostly just get ignored. It takes a certain dynamism to stand out from the averege, and most don’t have it.

I recommend readling how Sa’ad el Shazli treansformed the Egyptian Army after the '67 War – and Egypt was able to accomplish her strategic goal in the '73 War, getting the Sinai back… An Israeli brigadier commented on the effectiveness of el Shazli’s work – “We saw a battalion repulsed with great effusion of blood. And another battalion, which had seen the repulse, renewed the attack. We had never seen that before.”

El Shazli had many problems, but his solutions were effective. First of all, he weeded out the top officers – got rid of non-performers. He assigned the remainder specific goals and objectives and enforced them. This meant the middle level officers were being overseen and led by good men, who held the colonels and majors accountable. Then he set up rigorous training for young officers.

And finally, he called on his new units to do things an earlier generation would have thought impossible. He set them to grueling tasks in training – such as an amphibious crossing of the Great Bitter Lakes…

And when he sent them into action, they performed admirably.

Which leaves us with a norm, which is only average.

I thought the norm was the average?

 

[chicago]

Unlike a general, who has only temporal powers, a bishop’s powers extend to the soul.

Yet not unconditionally. Say a pastor refuses to obey a bishop’s directive. The bishop insists even more and asks him to leave the parish to be replaced by another priest who will do what he wants. The pastor declines the invitation. There’s little that the bishop can do that reaches the soul in that case as the pastor has canonical rights to stay in place which are difficult, if not impossible, for the bishop to overcome in many a case.

Actually, he can remove a pastor. In this diocese, the Bishop used to routinely reassign priests. He can reassign any priest, if that priest is not cutting the mustor.

The bishop makes assignments which, generally, are accepted by the priests. There may even be diocesan guidelines as to how this is to play out. But pastors have certain canonical rights which allow them to stay in place, even if a bishop wants to remove them. Basically, the pastor has to agree to move on. If he doesn’t there ain’t much a bishop can do unless there’s some pretty serious reason that may be used against the priest justifying a forcible withdrawl. Associate priests don’t have as many rights.

And like a general, he must go through a process to do more to the unsatisfactory or disobedient – but he has such processes to hand, just like a general.

Not always and it isn’t always the most advisable thing to “take action”. Afterall, if a priest is removed from a certain type of ministry, he remains a priest, nonetheless, and may lead even more faithful away from the fold. This makes things different from a business or military model where when you’re out you’re out.

No general can give absolution or retain sin. A bishop can!

99% of what a bishop deals with on a day to day basis will have nothing to do with such things. He has to deal with administrative headaches, generally. And that is what most of his “leadership” will end up putting him through.

El Shazli had many problems, but his solutions were effective. First of all, he weeded out the top officers – got rid of non-performers. He assigned the remainder specific goals and objectives and enforced them. This meant the middle level officers were being overseen and led by good men, who held the colonels and majors accountable. Then he set up rigorous training for young officers.

And finally, he called on his new units to do things an earlier generation would have thought impossible. He set them to grueling tasks in training – such as an amphibious crossing of the Great Bitter Lakes…

And when he sent them into action, they performed admirably.

It could be said that this is akin to how Cardinal George has rearranged much of the pastoral ministry of the Archdiocese. For this approach, he took alot of flaq from all sides because they either didn’t like his direction or he wasn’t acting directly enough for their liking. Nonetheless, a bishop can’t just “get rid” of non-performers. He has to find an assignment for them where they WILL have some field of influence.

I thought the norm was the average?

That’s the point. We’re ultimately stuck with what we’ve got.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yet not unconditionally.

Nor does a general have unconditional power. He must refer charges to a Court-martial in serious cases.

Say a pastor refuses to obey a bishop’s directive. The bishop insists even more and asks him to leave the parish to be replaced by another priest who will do what he wants. The pastor declines the invitation. There’s little that the bishop can do that reaches the soul in that case as the pastor has canonical rights to stay in place which are difficult, if not impossible, for the bishop to overcome in many a case.

The bishop cannot move a priest as a punishment, but he can move a priest as an administrative matter. Like a general, when punishment is indicated for a serious offense, he can only refer the case to an appropriate authority.

The bishop makes assignments which, generally, are accepted by the priests. There may even be diocesan guidelines as to how this is to play out. But pastors have certain canonical rights which allow them to stay in place, even if a bishop wants to remove them. Basically, the pastor has to agree to move on. If he doesn’t there ain’t much a bishop can do unless there’s some pretty serious reason that may be used against the priest justifying a forcible withdrawl. Associate priests don’t have as many rights.

Almost identical to the limits on a general’s powers

Not always and it isn’t always the most advisable thing to “take action”. Afterall, if a priest is removed from a certain type of ministry, he remains a priest, nonetheless, and may lead even more faithful away from the fold. This makes things different from a business or military model where when you’re out you’re out.

How so? While professionals have generally pretty high standards, I refer you to people like John Kerry – look at what he did after coming home from Viet Nam.

99% of what a bishop deals with on a day to day basis will have nothing to do with such things. He has to deal with administrative headaches, generally. And that is what most of his “leadership” will end up putting him through.

The same is true of generals – which is why we say, “Amateurs argue tactics, professionals study logistics.”

It could be said that this is akin to how Cardinal George has rearranged much of the pastoral ministry of the Archdiocese. For this approach, he took alot of flaq from all sides because they either didn’t like his direction or he wasn’t acting directly enough for their liking. Nonetheless, a bishop can’t just “get rid” of non-performers. He has to find an assignment for them where they WILL have some field of influence.

Very much like the military – as I said, for serious offenses, the general or the bishop must rely on courts, not on personal, direct punishment.

That’s the point. We’re ultimately stuck with what we’ve got.

That may be – but perhaps many bishops don’t know how badly we need their leadership, nor how to lead. Perhaps we can give them a hint or two.

 

[jman507]

I think you are getting a bit off topic, though I can understand this point of clarification. The Bishops have their hands full, after years of bad teaching and general unintrest on the part of the people, a lot of people are not good practicing Catholics.

What can you do to help the Bishop help tend to and educate the poor, the materially poor and/or the educationally poor?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think you are getting a bit off topic, though I can understand this point of clarification. The Bishops have their hands full, after years of bad teaching and general unintrest on the part of the people, a lot of people are not good practicing Catholics.

What can you do to help the Bishop help tend to and educate the poor, the materially poor and/or the educationally poor?

First of all you have to have a bishop. Then you have to have a bishop who wants help – or at least doesn’t actively reject it.

But we do things here like raise money for Right to Life, teach remedial reading, teach or coach kids (and adults) who want to be nurses, coach high school kids in math, and so on.