Why Do Bishops Allow This?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KatieD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KatieD

Guest
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
 
Cause Bishops are still human beings with all the faults and downfalls that come with. Some Bishops have been gifted with more courage and wisdom than others and find the right ways to govern effectively within their diocese. Some don’t. It’s a problem that’s plagued the Church throughout the ages. Our generation isn’t any different. We just find out about the bad stuff alot easier and faster through today’s media.

It really does help to pray for our Bishops. Despite all their faults, God is with them and takes care of everything, good and bad, in the long run.
 
It is also presumed that bishops somehow have a universal knowledge of everything that happens 24 hours a day in each and every one of their parishes.

In many instances, the bishops have little or no knowledge of what is actually going on. They are isolated from the priests of their diocese, let alone the parishoners. In addition, much of what is sent to the bishop is short-stopped before it ever gets to their desk. Coupled with that is the fact that often what is sent to the bishop by way of complaint comes off more as a rant than as a legitimate, well founded and well researched issue.

It is like, to some extent, being the president of a large corporation. The president doens’t spend their time on the floor of the business, watching the help, watching the managers, and micro-managing everthing that is going on. They are there to interface wtih senioer officials in other businesses and in government, and to set the overall direction of the company; they don’t go in and see how a report was prepared, or how a box was filled or an order taken.They have a secretary who screens their calls, and screens anyone who chooses to drop in; determines who will or wiol not get an appointment, and what mail gets put on the president’s desk. Many, if not most bishops have the same scenario between their office door and the public (and the parishoners).

Coupled with this is the fact that doing much more than telling some priest to do or not do something can often and quickly get tied up in Canon Law. Keep in mind also that throughout the history fo the Church, there haven’t been a lot of people who were “brought to heel”. One only needs to look to Rome to see that Rome, with a world full of theologians, doesn’t correct very many of them, and does so infrequently.
 
Well, first things first. What exactly has the priest said and done?

As a general rule for everyone, always hold the media in some suspicion. Even if it doesn’t always appear so, there is tremendous media bias out there against the Vatican. They’re not even aware that they’re biased, and they go in reporting with the preconception that there’s corruption in the Church or whatever. Really, if you stop, step back and take a look at the facts with a more sober worldview, you’d see everything really well.

So if the media reports something, try to go back and see their sources. Like, they reported that John Paul II’s Vatican bureaus approved Harry Potter. That’s absolutely not true. Nor did they condemn it. In fact, nothing at all was said about it from official stances; it was just one priest who works there that remarked some Christian virtues that could be learnt through Harry Potter.

Or look at the Conclave. They kept reporting about the secrecy of the Conclave. It gave off the impression that the Cardinals keep secrets because they have something to hide. That just isn’t so, and there are perfectly valid reasons for the secrecy.

Or look at the election of the Pope. All the media reported was people’s disappointment of him. It gave the impression that every normal Catholic in the world was unhappy with the election, and that the Vatican “just doesn’t get it.” That’s very untrue and very biased; those people didn’t speak for everyone, and they certainly didn’t speak for me. And the irony of it all is that in fact, those critics themselves are the ones who just didn’t get it. It’s amazing how stupidity can be so rampant.

Anyway, those people in the media are stupid. Just don’t trust them. Hold them in suspicion. If your camera lens has a smudge, you don’t trust the picture that you get in the end to be accurate. The media is smudged with extreme bias.

Take the facts they present and scrutinise them harshly. Oftentimes, even the reporters who are specially assigned to covering the Church really just don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s understandable to a point – they have to cover a lot of stuff, so they can’t devote the same time and care to these issues that scholars might. But it’s still irresponsible for them to do that.

Instead, go back to the sources. What has that priest done? What has he said? How does it weigh against the dominant Catholic view?

After hearing those things, then ask, what do the Cardinal’s representatives say about it? It might be justified; they might very well be aware of it.

Don’t be afraid to ask your parish priest or to even write to the Chancery to inquire. They’re here to serve us. In the end, it might very well be that the priest didn’t do anything wrong or unorthodox at all, and that your Cardinal isn’t in any error in the slightest.

Truth be told, some people working for the diocese might be a little irked that you’re asking them. They might feel bothered and annoyed. But it’s their job, and they need to wise up too. They should always be willing to answer questions that are asked when the questioner has an open mind and good intentions, as you clearly do. You’re not trying to barage them with annoyances and taunting; you’re not trying to take overtake them. But, you simply wish to let your spirituality grow and to strengthen your faith in this Church that was given to you. It’s their job to help that spirituality gain strength, and answering you with rudeness would tend to only do the opposite. People like that contribute to the media bias against Catholicism as a whole.

The Bishops and priests wash our feet on Holy Thursday for a reason, and if they can’t live up to the obligation of servitude, let them find another career.
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
 
The points made in response are well taken, and do much to explain the lack of definitive action in these situations. However, there is another perspective we might do well to consider. Our Lord’s parable of the weeds among the wheat (MT 13:24-30) and His explanation of why the weeds should not immediately be uprooted seems to have some applicability in this situation. Food for thought.

Hope that helps.
 
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
I agree with what your husband asked. But the thing is we often imagine ourselves to be bishops, and how we would amend everything and lay down the law on liberalism etc. I think that if a matter is really bugging you, you can actually bring the matter up witht the priest or write to the bishop. I think sometimes bishops are worried about being estranged or disliked, and also about discouraging the laity from attending Mass. However, I personally like to hear priests/bishops laying down some guidelines for us from the pulpit. It is inspiring.
 
It is also presumed that bishops somehow have a universal knowledge of everything that happens 24 hours a day in each and every one of their parishes.

In many instances, the bishops have little or no knowledge of what is actually going on. They are isolated from the priests of their diocese, let alone the parishoners.
What you said is true, but only to a certain point.

For example, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (auxiliary bishop of Detroit) has PUBLICLY dissented, attacked, and undermined the Church since the 1960s. He is the darling poster-child of all the heretical groups in America, yet he remains a bishop in good standing despite having served under three if not four cardinals in that time. Gumbleton is hardly unknown (just do a google search).

Many of those in charge simply turn a blind eye out of political correctness, IMHO.
 
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
A recent case in the news regarding an outspoken priest whose political activities do present a conflict with the Church has once again brought this issue into the spotlight. And the media sources regarding the behaviors of this particular priest include Catholic publications and commentators who are very reliable. So I completely understand your husband’s concerns and share them as well.

I just finished reading an excelled book written by Judie Brown who is a member of the American Life League and an courageous Catholic voice. It explores this very issue without the politically correct rhetoric we are bombarded with even when we address our priests and bishops. It’s a quick read and I highly recommend it.
amazon.com/Saving-Those-Damned-Catholics-Judie/dp/1425723462/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4053024-3219107?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180887258&sr=1-1
 
This line brings to the forefront again something that is quite false, viz namely that what the Church teaches is a very narrow in scope. The opposite is more true. There are areas that are very clearly and narrowly defined. But there are lots of areas that have room of lots of different approaches and interpretations. There are also lots of areas where groups in the church swear that what they believe is the only orthodox? doctrine of the church. And so ofter this is not true.
Yes there are areas and times where a priest or some priests will present something that is unacceptable. But my experience has been that the accusations of this that I find on this board are often not accurate. And in those cases, a bishop is more likely to have a process of reprimand that they go through. I imagine it goes something like this. Much of this is usually delegated to another priest.
I. Gather the facts:
a. Is it an issue that needs immediately and positve action eg.abuse of a child.
b. then act accordingly.
II First try of resolving the issue.
a.) talk to the person privately about the area of concern.
b.) listen carefully to the persons (both parties need to do this) explanation(s) about it.
c.) consult with others on both sides of the issue.
d.) try to reach a mutually agreeable solution
e.) Last resort of the above–Instruct the offender to desist.
III. Continue the above, trying to go into more depth in seeking resolution. (This may be repeated several times.)
IV. After the above has failed, then act in a limiting, punitive way
(best example of this at a high level was with Bsp Lefebvre.)
V. Suspension or worse, excommunication, is only a last resort.
 
But my experience has been that the accusations of this that I find on this board are often not accurate.
I disagree. I’ve been around these parts for a few years and I rarely see questions or concerns that don’t have, at least in some part, merit. In my own diocese, we have been continually bombarded with “confusing” messages, often carried out right under the Bishop’s nose. Our pro-abortion “catholic” governor was invited to speak at the Cathedral (where the Archbishop celebrates Mass regularly) during the funeral of JPII. Even if the Archbishop was unaware this was to take place (highly doubtful), he certainly was made aware of it by the many outraged Catholics in the area. Was anything done to address this? Of course not.
 
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
I actually wrote to the our Archbishop complaining of a particular priest who is an ex-politician. His entire Mass in punctuated with political innuendos…to the point that is sickens the congregation. Many people have complained to the Bishop…but no difference no change. The priest still continues doing his thing. People are fed up and just move on to another church.
I guess we have to pray for our weaker priests (not the popular ones coz they get enough prayers) and for our such Bishops too. God can do wonders when the saints pray.
 
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
If it’s one of the two priests about which I’m thinking:
  • Letting the one “do his own thing” at one parish is considered better than cutting him loose, so to speak, to cause even more harm. It’s also a better place on which to keep an eye on him. I can tell you if it’s this priest, I know he DOES get called into the chancery every so often for a “chat”. I don’t agree with it, but I am not the bishop or the cardinal.
  • The other one wouldn’t do any good as a parish priest, in the sense of being a pastor. He was shut out of that by a prior cardinal who had problems of his own. He’s better off doing what he does. He doesn’t have a much of a following as he did in past decade. Besides, he’s technically retired. He is also a diocesan priest, and can own as much property as he likes- a lot of which he uses to fund Catholic schools.
 
What you said is true, but only to a certain point.

For example, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton (auxiliary bishop of Detroit) has PUBLICLY dissented, attacked, and undermined the Church since the 1960s. He is the darling poster-child of all the heretical groups in America, yet he remains a bishop in good standing despite having served under three if not four cardinals in that time. Gumbleton is hardly unknown (just do a google search).

Many of those in charge simply turn a blind eye out of political correctness, IMHO.
Good point. Father Hans Kung was a professor that worked with Benedict XVI at a university in Germany some time ago when the Holy Father was a professor too. But then Kung said a bunch of rather heterodox things. He also came out with a book that challenged Papal Infallibility.

Funny enough, Ratzinger got to be a professor through Hans Kung’s recomendation.

Kung is definitely not an obscure man. You could hear of him even in a 100-level ethics course in a university. Although he is so radically-heterodox in what he says, he hasn’t been excommunicated, and he visited the Pope and the two ate a meal together like the old friends that they are, even though one is the Pope and the other questions the Pope’s authority.

Perhaps it’s fraternal love that our Bishops see as a necessity to keep the Church together. Maybe we’re just not viewing it correctly, and we’re forcing on a belief that anyone who steps out of line should be disciplined or cut out. Maybe we’re just lacking the charity to understand that? I’m guilty of that sin myself.

The media tries to portray the Church as divisive like that and intolerant of anyone who steps out of line; but we can see how that isn’t actually the case.

I’ve been talking to Bishop Gumbleton through e-mail in the last year. I like him immensely as a successor to the Apostles and a fellow human being, but I found it odd that someone with rather radical views got to be a Bishop in the first place.

Yet, Bishop Gumbleton was never excommunicated. It’s customary for all Bishops to offer their resignation when they turn 75; Bishop Gumbleton refused to do it. He finally gave it a year later, but he still stayed on as a pastor of a parish in Detroit where, last I heard, he still is. Cardinal Maida, the Archbishop of Detroit, could very well remove him from the post, but it hasn’t been done. It’s been quite some time since this has all happened, and Cardinal Maida had all this time to remove Bishop Gumbleton, but he still hasn’t done anything like that. Perhaps it’s just the respect that the Cardinal has for the Bishop, even though the Bishop is the subordinate.

One thing I realised, we might be discounting the mutual respect that exists with clerics. They hold each other in esteem because they all are members of the same sacred Mystical Body of Christ. Maybe we’re overlooking the respect they have for each other; perhaps it’s also just a part of the universal experience, where some Catholics may dissent from others. Does this mean that a split or excommunication can only happen when there’s a hugely egregious mistake? We do know that Church Unity is a very important principle that our leaders take, since it was, after all, one of the final wishes of Jesus before He was Crucified.

Another Bishop in the extremes is a man by the name Emmanuel Milingo. He was the Catholic Archbishop in Zambia. He was a proponent of clerical marriage, and you won’t believe what he did about it.

Ever heard of the Sun Myung Moon cult? The followers are often called “Moonies.” Read about them and you’ll find a lot of absolute crazy things the cult does. One thing they did was have a massive wedding with hundreds of men marrying hundreds of women. The couples didn’t even get to select each other; they were just assigned to marry each other and met right there at the ceremony.

Well, Archbishop Milingo actually took part in that and got married to a woman he never met before.

Yet, Milingo wasn’t excommunicated for it. There are certainly grounds for it, particularly as John Paul II privately sent a plea to ask Milingo to stop it.

Eventually, Milingo left the woman and went to live in a monastery in Italy, and he claimed that the Moonies brainwashed him. But that wasn’t the end of it.

Milingo left the monastery and got back with the woman. He wasn’t even excommunicated for that.

After all of that, neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI decided to excommunicate Milingo. Much of it is apparently because of fraternal love between brother Bishops and clerics and the need for unity.

But he finally was excommunicated earlier this year when he ordained a couple other Bishops without any permission from the Pope. This calls for an automatic excommunication for Milingo and his new Bishops.

Essentially, Milingo excommunicated himself.
 
Just a reminder that it may be helpful to review item 18 of Banned Topics
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511

Additionally, it has been made clear in the Liturgy & Sacraments Forum by a number of moderator notices, that when desiring to critique clergy, parishes, individuals, etc., unless the matter falls under a publicly referenced article, news story, etc., where identities are divulged, the subject is to be “generalized,” that is, specific identifying information is not to be included.

In your charity please make effort to address issues rather than indicting individuals. Thanks in advance for your help in assisting us to maintain these limits and guidelines.
 
Okay, although the things about Bishop Gumbleton, Archbishop Milingo and Hans Kung are very well known. Even Wikipedia covers these things
I don’t personally trust Wikipedia as a source, but those articles just go to show that these things about them are commonly known, and those articles also give links to other articles about these guys.
Just a reminder that it may be helpful to review item 18 of Banned Topics
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17511

Additionally, it has been made clear in the Liturgy & Sacraments Forum by a number of moderator notices, that when desiring to critique clergy, parishes, individuals, etc., unless the matter falls under a publicly referenced article, news story, etc., where identities are divulged, the subject is to be “generalized,” that is, specific identifying information is not to be included.

In your charity please make effort to address issues rather than indicting individuals. Thanks in advance for your help in assisting us to maintain these limits and guidelines.
 
the Vatican has rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology.
With respect to Hans Kung, he has been disciplined, at least, by the Vatican. And Milingo, we know, has been publicly declared excommunicated.
Perhaps it’s fraternal love that our Bishops see as a necessity to keep the Church together. Maybe we’re just not viewing it correctly, and we’re forcing on a belief that anyone who steps out of line should be disciplined or cut out. Maybe we’re just lacking the charity to understand that? I’m guilty of that sin myself.
There may be an element of mutual respect involved, but I don’t think we, as the Body of Christ, are viewing this incorrectly. In fact, I believe we have been far too indulgent of the dissent that not only exists within the Church, but has a very loud voice and commands the greatest amount of attention. Witness any mainstream media program about religion and you will be treated to a parade of clergy that is either lukewarm or outright heterodox claiming to represent the Church. Do you ever wonder why Father Corapi, Fr. Pavone, or Father Neuhaus are not invited to speak on the Larry King Show when he does a program about the DaVinci Code, or during John Paul II’s funeral?

Once again, I recommend the book I linked above. It’s an in depth look at the issues that are causing such a division within the Church. It’s cheap too!
 
Yet, Bishop Gumbleton was never excommunicated. It’s customary for all Bishops to offer their resignation when they turn 75; Bishop Gumbleton refused to do it. He finally gave it a year later, but he still stayed on as a pastor of a parish in Detroit where, last I heard, he still is. . .
FYI, Bishop Gumbleton was relieved of his pastoral responsibilities effective last January.

Link Here
 
My husband, who is not Catholic, asked me a question yesterday which I have pondered many times. We were watching a news story about a priest who is well known for being quite far left in his politics and not exactly orthodox. My husband asked me why the bishop (and cardinal in our case) would allow this and why they don’t “crack down” on priests who teach things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings, make up their own ways of celebrating Mass, etc. These are priests that are well known to the bishop and cardinal, not some quiet priests that no one is aware of. I think they hurt their parishioners terribly. Any help with an answer on this one? Thanks!
I understand what you are saying and I often wonder the same thing myself. It makes it very difficult to evangelize others who are not Catholic when this kind of thing is permitted to go on. This is why I am so concerned that it took the church so long to recognize that the priest scandals were going on. Makes it very difficult to explain it to a spouse who is not a Catholic. I know. I have the problem.
 
With respect to Hans Kung, he has been disciplined, at least, by the Vatican. And Milingo, we know, has been publicly declared excommunicated.
Okay, but again, Archbishop Milingo’s excommunication didn’t happen because he was (frankly) heretical and disobedient.

Again, his excommunication only happened automatically when he essentially excommunicated himself by performing illicit ordinations, years after he began with his weirdo teachings.

The question still remains, then, why did the Holy Fathers John Paul II and Benedict XVI not excommunicate him for that disobedience?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top