Why do the bishops not act?

[dans0622]

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.

Hello again,

Yes, that is what she does and I find that to be completely unacceptable for many reasons. What is right and wrong, what is moral and immoral, what is good and evil, does not depend on a majority vote. Her first duty, as a Catholic, is to divine law, both positive and natural. If her constituents do not agree, so be it.

No one should be expected to be a puppet and subject his/her conscience to the desires of an ever-changing electorate. “To thine own self be true” doesn’t end at the capitol steps.

Besides that, how could anyone ever vote for someone if the candidate would only do what the majority wanted? Such a candidate would be unpredictable and unable to promise anything, commit to anything, agree to anything.

Simply subjecting yourself to majority rule is not governing.

Anyway, this is off topic. On the topic, I think more uniformity and consistency in applying canon law would be a welcome improvement.

Thanks again for the reply and your time.
Dan

 

[St_Francis]

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.

First, in reply to your first post on this thread, *no one *has the so-called “right” to kill an unborn child any more than they have the right to kill a child after he or she has been born. Therefore, no one has the right to vote in approval of lessening restrictions on abortion.

Second, Pelosi knew what she was getting into when she chose to run. She picked something other than God when she did so, and she picks something other than God every time she votes in support of abortion.

Third, her actions, and the actions of other politicians like her, are causing scandal.

There are a lot of people who have quit their jobs rather than do something immoral to keep them. And there are a lot of people who have risked their jobs in defense of morality, some of whom lost their jobs, and others of whom did not loose their jobs. Imagine if all the Catholic politicians were to stand up for the unborn, maybe they would not only not loose their jobs, maybe they would also inform and teach the people, which is a spiritual act of mercy.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Rights to kill?

Yeah, that’s what happens when one, politician or not, puts politics ahead of their faith and their immortal soul. Who knows, maybe like Constantine, on her deathbed perhaps she may admit she sinned and is contrite, but then I haven’t heard anything about Kennedy’s death bed confession if he made one. Oh shucks, there is that darn prohibition of clergy being unable to repeat anything a person says to them in a confessional.

 

[elts1956]

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.

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

The lights may be on, but Public citizens, especially politicians, SHOULD NOT be able to receive the Eucharist until they make PUBLIC their intention to no longer support Intrinsic Evils. This is the main confusion and scandal many Bishops are causing today, that they allow a PUBLIC SINNER to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord without demanding the politician et al must be remorseful and change his life. There are no apparent consequences for their anti Catholic actions and beliefs. Isn’t that what Reconciliation means? To regret what sins one has commited and promise to amend one’s life? Any good Catholic knows the meaning of that. Many of our Bishops are progressives who lean a mite too far left as far as the doctrine of the Church should be maintained when it comes to dealing with this very GREAT scandal.

I almost threw up when I saw our illustrious VP on TV on Ash Wednesday. He actually had the temerity to have Ashes on his forehead. But then I understand some Protestant Churches also have this ritual. I wonder which one he belongs to?

 

[Ender]

Rence:

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.

Of course the bishops can act and several of them have; the problem comes from those who should but have not. Nor does this have anything to do with whether or not this is a Catholic country as a bishop’s rights and responsibilities are set by the Church, not by the State.

VonDerTann:

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

The bishop especially but every Eucharistic minister as well has the responsibility to ensure that communion is given only to those who are properly disposed to receive it - and normally this can be known only from an individual’s public actions. The bishop may not have the right to control who is in his flock but he has the obligation to safeguard the Eucharist.

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

This completely misses the issue. The bishop needs to make no decision at all; the individual, by his public actions in supporting abortion, has set himself outside of communion with the Church and ***must ***be denied communion.

Every one of us, bar none, at some point in our lives, has done something which could invoke the ire of some hypothetical bishop.

Again, this completely misses the issue. The question is not whether we sin but whether we “obstinately persever[e] in manifest grave sin.” That’s a rather different level of significance altogether and does not, as you imply, lend itself to mere petulance on the part of the bishop.

Ender