Why do the bishops not act?

[martywheaton]

confused: Someone asked ‘Why do bishops allow pro-abortionists to remain Catholic?’

The answer given,'It is not the task of the bishops to throw anyone out of the Church, but rather to urge those who are not Catholic to become Catholic and those who are Catholic to deepen their faith. When a bishop determines that it is necessary to take action against a Catholic who is causing public scandal by claiming, for example, that a good Catholic can support abortion “rights,” the purpose is not to strip the person of his Church affiliation but to alert the person to the seriousness of his actions and the need to reconcile with God and his Church.

My question: Why do the bishops not act and tell those individuals (especially public figures) that they cannot claim to be members of the Catholic Church while promoting abortion. And that they need to realise the seriousness of their offences and reconcile themselves to God?

 

[Stylites]

My question: Why do the bishops not act and tell those individuals (especially public figures) that they cannot claim to be members of the Catholic Church while promoting abortion. And that they need to realise the seriousness of their offences and reconcile themselves to God?

I personally am not privy to every private conversation each and every bishop has with his flock, so I cannot comment on the validity of your question.

.

 

[Rence]

I have my suspicions Marty, but they are based on what I see and hear every day from my environment, and that’s only part of the country. Based on where you live and what you see and with whom you communicate, why do YOU think the bishops not act? What are your thoughts regarding the Bishops’ inaction?

We know that Pelosi met with the Holy Father and it is suspected they talked about reproductive rights in the US. And we know Pelosi’s position regarding reproductive rights for US citizens, which she says (correctly) represent people of all faiths, not just Catholics. She does, after all, have the responsibility of representing ALL the citizens, not just Catholic citizens of this country. And we all know that after that meeting with the Holy Father, she still attends Mass and receives Communion and neither the Pope, nor the Bishop, has announced her excommunication. Though, as we’ve heard and read, Bishops have announced other peoples’ status of excommunication. So that tells me that she is still in good standing with the Church, or her excommunication would have been announced, like the others.

I don’t think the Bishops can act against supporters of abortion rights, or else they would. If this was a Catholic country, they would have more leverage. But like it or not, Pelosi is correct when she says that though Catholic she still has an obligation to protect the rights of citizens who are not Catholic. If Catholic lawmakers would make laws in response to Catholic teachings, they would be ignoring the rights of those who are not Catholic.

 

[BOBKAT]

confused: Someone asked ‘Why do bishops allow pro-abortionists to remain Catholic?’

The answer given,'It is not the task of the bishops to throw anyone out of the Church, but rather to urge those who are not Catholic to become Catholic and those who are Catholic to deepen their faith. When a bishop determines that it is necessary to take action against a Catholic who is causing public scandal by claiming, for example, that a good Catholic can support abortion “rights,” the purpose is not to strip the person of his Church affiliation but to alert the person to the seriousness of his actions and the need to reconcile with God and his Church.

My question: Why do the bishops not act and tell those individuals (especially public figures) that they cannot claim to be members of the Catholic Church while promoting abortion. And that they need to realise the seriousness of their offences and reconcile themselves to God?

The Bishops should act the very fact that they do not causes confusion in our Beloved, and if a public figure takes a stand against the very teachings of the Church yet claims publicly to be Catholic than the Bishops have an obligation to publicly admonish them so as to settle the nerves of the faithful. While Nancy has an obligation to all those no matter there faith she as an obligation to her faith first and if that is a problem than she needs to leave office. We as Catholics should have every soul in our hearts when being in such a powerful place.

 

[kristie_m]

The Bishops should act the very fact that they do not causes confusion in our Beloved, and if a public figure takes a stand against the very teachings of the Church yet claims publicly to be Catholic than the Bishops have an obligation to publicly admonish them so as to settle the nerves of the faithful. While Nancy has an obligation to all those no matter there faith she as an obligation to her faith first and if that is a problem than she needs to leave office. We as Catholics should have every soul in our hearts when being in such a powerful place.

This cuts right to the heart of the matter. It would seem that if a Catholic politician wants to remain true to their faith, they can expect a very short career in politics.

 

[PJM]

=martywheaton;6741159]confused: Someone asked ‘Why do bishops allow pro-abortionists to remain Catholic?’

The answer given,'It is not the task of the bishops to throw anyone out of the Church, but rather to urge those who are not Catholic to become Catholic and those who are Catholic to deepen their faith. When a bishop determines that it is necessary to take action against a Catholic who is causing public scandal by claiming, for example, that a good Catholic can support abortion “rights,” the purpose is not to strip the person of his Church affiliation but to alert the person to the seriousness of his actions and the need to reconcile with God and his Church.

My question: Why do the bishops not act and tell those individuals (especially public figures) that they cannot claim to be members of the Catholic Church while promoting abortion. And that they need to realise the seriousness of their offences and reconcile themselves to God?

Actually some do! And there warnings are simply ignored! This is usually done in private.

 

[VonDerTann]

Some thoughts:

1. The OP did not ask, “why doesn’t the Pope excommunicate people?” Instead, OP asked, “why don’t the bishops act…?”
2. That leads us to why we believe individual bishops have a right or ability to essentially control who is in their “flock.”
3. I can only state that when individual bishops start deciding who can and can’t be Catholic, and actually act upon their decisions…

…eventually every Catholic church will be empty.

Every one of us, bar none, at some point in our lives, has done something which could invoke the ire of some hypothetical bishop. When that bishop starts excommunicating people, eventually another bishop wil excommunicate someone else for some offense which that particular bishop feels is somehow more blameworthy than others…and eventually lots and lots of people get kicked out…and what we get is either empty churches, or [perhaps worse] a polyglot of dioceses where people get kicked out willy-nilly based on the whims of bishops.

Does that sound Christian to you? It certainly doesn’t to me.

All of this reminds me of an old episode of the TV show Dragnet (which I have actually referenced before). Joe Friday is investigating the theft of a statute of Jesus from a Catholic church. Friday learns that the church was left unlocked. He is incredulous and asks the priest, “you mean you leave the church unlocked so any thieves can walk right in?” The priest responds, “especially thieves, Mr. Friday.”

And so it is with the Church today. The metaphorical doors to the Church are ALWAYS to be left open to all…and the lights on, as well.

–VdT

 

[Stylites]

I don’t think the Bishops can act against supporters of abortion rights, or else they would. If this was a Catholic country, they would have more leverage. But like it or not, Pelosi is correct when she says that though Catholic she still has an obligation to protect the rights of citizens who are not Catholic. If Catholic lawmakers would make laws in response to Catholic teachings, they would be ignoring the rights of those who are not Catholic.

Odd statements coming from a Catholic. Abortion is not a “right” no more than fathers have a “right” to abandon infants to jackals and the elements. Real rights don’t come from Caesar, they come from God.

.

 

[puzzleannie]

My question: Why do the bishops not act and tell those individuals (especially public figures) that they cannot claim to be members of the Catholic Church while promoting abortion. And that they need to realise the seriousness of their offences and reconcile themselves to God?

since that communication should come under matter of confession, and be privileged and confidential between the bishop and the member of his flock, there is no way third parties can know what he has or has not said to public figures who support or enable abortion, other than the fact we already know the laws on automatic excommunication. My suggestion is that the average Catholic has all he can do to concentrate on his own sins, and has no leisure to worry about the state of soul of other Catholics for whom he has no direct responsibility, such as his own children.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Theses issues are governed by canon law and not individual bishops. Simply being a pro-choice politician is not grounds to be ex communicated. Granted, they should not be receiving communion but it is not an ex communicable offense.
Just because they are still Cathoic does not mean that they are considered to be a good Catholic. And, as others have mentioned here, usually there’s plenty of private communication over this issue.

 

[rick43235]

If Catholic lawmakers would make laws in response to Catholic teachings, they would be ignoring the rights of those who are not Catholic.

And, assuming they are elected officials, they would likely not be lawmakers for very long.

 

[dans0622]

We know that Pelosi met with the Holy Father and it is suspected they talked about reproductive rights in the US. And we know Pelosi’s position regarding reproductive rights for US citizens, which she says (correctly) represent people of all faiths, not just Catholics. She does, after all, have the responsibility of representing ALL the citizens, not just Catholic citizens of this country. And we all know that after that meeting with the Holy Father, she still attends Mass and receives Communion and neither the Pope, nor the Bishop, has announced her excommunication. Though, as we’ve heard and read, Bishops have announced other peoples’ status of excommunication. So that tells me that she is still in good standing with the Church, or her excommunication would have been announced, like the others.

I don’t think the Bishops can act against supporters of abortion rights, or else they would. If this was a Catholic country, they would have more leverage. But like it or not, Pelosi is correct when she says that though Catholic she still has an obligation to protect the rights of citizens who are not Catholic. If Catholic lawmakers would make laws in response to Catholic teachings, they would be ignoring the rights of those who are not Catholic.

Hi Rence,

A few comments.

1. It is interesting that Pelosi (e.g.) claims to, as you say, represent people of all faiths-- yet, she doesn’t even represent people of her own faith. The fact is, she knows that it is politically expedeint for her to vote the way she votes. She can’t change now, and continue to hold office. Her priorities are: 1. Keep her job. 2. (or further down the list) Follow the clear teaching of her self-proclaimed faith.
2. There is a difference between excommunication and denial of communion.
3. Could you give an example of someone who holds to the Catholic faith, legislates accordingly, and thereby does not respect the rights of non-Catholics? Are you suggesting that there is an actual “right” to abortion?

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[PJM]

=VonDerTann;6742513]Some thoughts:

1. The OP did not ask, “why doesn’t the Pope excommunicate people?” Instead, OP asked, “why don’t the bishops act…?”

1. That leads us to why we believe individual bishops have a right or ability to essentially control who is in their “flock.”

1. I can only state that when individual bishops start deciding who can and can’t be Catholic, and actually act upon their decisions…

…eventually every Catholic church will be empty.

Every one of us, bar none, at some point in our lives, has done something which could invoke the ire of some hypothetical bishop. When that bishop starts excommunicating people, eventually another bishop wil excommunicate someone else for some offense which that particular bishop feels is somehow more blameworthy than others…and eventually lots and lots of people get kicked out…and what we get is either empty churches, or [perhaps worse] a polyglot of dioceses where people get kicked out willy-nilly based on the whims of bishops.

Does that sound Christian to you? It certainly doesn’t to me.

All of this reminds me of an old episode of the TV show Dragnet (which I have actually referenced before). Joe Friday is investigating the theft of a statute of Jesus from a Catholic church. Friday learns that the church was left unlocked. He is incredulous and asks the priest, “you mean you leave the church unlocked so any thieves can walk right in?” The priest responds, “especially thieves, Mr. Friday.”

And so it is with the Church today. The metaphorical doors to the Church are ALWAYS to be left open to all…and the lights on, as well.

–VdT

VERY WELL DONE! THANKS:thumbsup:

 

[manualman]

Bishops today DO seem to act very differently than did bishops in the times of the early fathers and early church history in regards to disciplining.

Or maybe that is just what happens when you condense 100 years of history into two chapters in a history book…

Glad it’s not MY job! Note to self, pray for bishops and priests…

 

[Rence]

Hi Dan

1. It is interesting that Pelosi (e.g.) claims to, as you say, represent people of all faiths-- yet, she doesn’t even represent people of her own faith. The fact is, she knows that it is politically expedeint for her to vote the way she votes. She can’t change now, and continue to hold office. Her priorities are: 1. Keep her job. 2. (or further down the list) Follow the clear teaching of her self-proclaimed faith.

Why do you think that it is politically expedient for her to vote the way she votes? How is that going to help her keep her job and why?

1. There is a difference between excommunication and denial of communion.

When one is excommunicated, that means they are not allowed to participate in Holy Communion because of something they did that resulted in a separation between themselves and the Church, and which requires repentance and reconciliation. But when one is excommunicated they are still required to fulfill their other Catholic duties, for example, attending Mass. They are also called and required to being working on that reconcilation asap.

Denying someone of communion assumes they are in a state of mortal sin at the time they are requesting Holy Communion. Some folks here at CAF say that a priest has no right to withold communion from someone. Others say that it’s actually required of him. I don’t know either way for sure. But I do know that the Bishop can deny someone communion if he thinks the person is not in a state of grace.

1. Could you give an example of someone who holds to the Catholic faith, legislates accordingly, and thereby does not respect the rights of non-Catholics? Are you suggesting that there is an actual “right” to abortion?
   Thanks for your time.
   Dan

I’m not in a position to answer that. The only Catholic politician that I really like is Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago, and I’m quite quite quite sure there will be some opinion here as to whether or not he is a faithful Catholic. Personally, I don’t think I’m in a position to judge him. I don’t know anything about his personal life. He’s the only thing about Chicago that I miss…ok, I miss the diverse selection of ethnic foods too. He is hardly perfect, but I would say he represents all Chicagoans across the many races, religions and cultures represented there.

As to your last question: I choose to be in compliance with the Catholic Church’s teachings and rules, however, I always want it to be my choice. I do not want to give someone else power over me, such that they control my reproduction and my body. It makes me feel like chattel, disrespected, and thought of as insignificant to think that others can make decisions for me when I am in fact alert, oriented and quite capable of making my own choices. I am not an incubator, I am a woman with rights over her own body. I won’t let those rights be taken from me easily. This is not just about abortion, it’s about all aspects of reproductive decisions and healthcare decisions.

 

[dans0622]

Why do you think that it is politically expedient for her to vote the way she votes? How is that going to help her keep her job and why?

Thanks for the reply, Rence.

I think that because of the make-up of her district. It is probably one of the most “liberal” in the country.

Dan

 

[rcjones]

Some thoughts:

1. That leads us to why we believe individual bishops have a right or ability to essentially control who is in their “flock.”

–VdT

In other threads, the confessional is touted as being authorized by Jesus’ authority given to the apostles to forgive and retain sin.

Are you disputing this? If they can forgive sin, why would it be out of bounds to retain them?

It seems logical that any priest who takes confessions, has the authority to not forgive based on the discernment that the continuing lifestyle of promoting abortion, or whatever, is evidence that there is no repentance.

The great schism was based on lessor crimes than abortion and whole flocks were cast out as being heretical.

 

[rcjones]

If Catholic lawmakers would make laws in response to Catholic teachings, they would be ignoring the rights of those who are not Catholic.

Every law enforces morality. There is nothing inherently evil for passing through a red light. By convention we have made it wrong. That is the very purpose of law… specifically to define right and wrong in a community.

Whenever a behavior is defined as wrong, there are some people who are offended because they want to do it. That’s the way anything but anarchy is. So there is nothing inherently wrong with passing laws that offend people and hold them to a different behavior than what they have.

In the past, the King made those choices, and as the king went, so went the country. ‘We the people’ are now the king. As we decide these things, so goes the country. We permit the slide when we say, “I’m not gay, but it’s their preference and OK with me.” Or “I’m not pro-abortion, but it’s their choice.” Guess what. If that is your position, then you are gay and you are an abortionist. You may prefer coffee today and tea tomorrow, if it is just a choice.

It is a morality, it is the character of the country which God’s people-kings will permit in this country or not. We change the laws as well as they do, and the country goes the way we permit it to go.

The purpose of the law is to constrain evil-doers. We have no business passing traffic laws if we do not the first part.

IMHO of course

 

[Rence]

Thanks for the reply, Rence.

I think that because of the make-up of her district. It is probably one of the most “liberal” in the country.

Dan

So then I would say that how Pelosi votes is on behalf of the wants and needs of the people in the district that she represents. It would be inappropriate (and she would get voted out) if she failed to represent her district in the manner in which they expect of her. That’s her job. She votes for them. If she can’t do that, because of her religious beliefs or other personal biases, then she shouldn’t have that position.

 

[PJM]

=rcjones;6749296]In other threads, the confessional is touted as being authorized by Jesus’ authority given to the apostles to forgive and retain sin.

Are you disputing this? If they can forgive sin, why would it be out of bounds to retain them?

It seems logical that any priest who takes confessions, has the authority to not forgive based on the discernment that the continuing lifestyle of promoting abortion, or whatever, is evidence that there is no repentance.

The great schism was based on lessor crimes than abortion and whole flocks were cast out as being heretical.

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:** "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, **but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.** Jesus said to them **again, “Peace be with you. **As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” **And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

There ya go, now you nolonger have to guess