Members: Login | Register | Member List
Previous: Ted Kennedy: theologianNext: More of what she saw on the way to the funeral
Back to main
The US bishops decide nothing
Apparently the US bishops have formulated a statement on Catholic pro-abortion politicians going to Communion. And the result: nothing. They don’t say anything helpful at all. They just acknowledge that these people shouldn’t go to Communion, but that it’s up to the individual bishop. No appeal to universal Church teaching or canon law, no guidance or directive. Nothing.
Bishop Richard Hanifen, the retired bishop of Colorado Springs, told the newspaper: “There’s a balance. There’s an obvious renewal of the clear commitment we have to life from the beginning of life to the end. There’s never going to be wavering on that. But the individual circumstances each bishop faces in his own dioceses have a lot to do with how each bishop responds.”
My problem in all of this is that what we have from bishops is a big fat nothing. Everyone can go to Communion, apparently, whatever you may have done, whether you have mortal sin or not, whatever you profess in public. It’s just fine. Oh sure, you’re not supposed to go, but they’re not going to do anything if you do.
What’s the point of a prohibition without any enforcement?
-->
COMMENTS
Unfortunately exactly what I expected. When pressured towards a decision they go wobbly.
So does Cannon 915 just not apply in America?
Posted by Jeff Miller on 06/18/04 at 02:54 PM It is consistent with the teaching of the Church however. Whether we like it or not.
They don’t say anything helpful at all. They just acknowledge that these people shouldn’t go to Communion, but that it’s up to the individual bishop.
It would seem that we are picking and choosing our Canons. We are quick to point out Canon 915, which is not part of Book Six of the code, which treats of ecclesiastical sanctions. At least that is what Archbishop Burke says.
However, we forget Canon Can. 749 §2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.
It is this Canon that the retired bishop from Colorado Springs is referring to when he says that it is up to the individual bishops.
We shouldn’t be so quick. The Church is defining the situation and there will be a consensus, perhaps not in the time that we want it, but it will come.
BTW, Canon 915 does apply in America.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 07:21 PM It’s consistent with the teaching of the Church that our bishops are corrupt and afraid to say anything at all, deadlocked in their own quagmire?? It’s consistent that our bishops condone immorality more or less indefinitely??
It is not. I know more history than that.
We’ve have periods of corruption, indeed. But there is no church law that says that they must do nothing indefinitely but violate the local laws, play golf and hem & haw about everything.
Each of them has an obligation to carry out the will of God and the teaching of the Catholic faith in their own dioceses. That includes enforcing laws as needed, and governing the diocese.
I’m glad I will not be a bishop on judgment day. It’s a tough job and not many of them are doing it well at all.
They are weak little men.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 08:39 PM Hey you guys, I just realized something. This is not bad.
Church law and tradition says that each bishop is supposed to be the teacher and father of his own diocese.
For the last 40 years, they have been working under a faulty idea of collegiality, where it was understood by them that they had teaching authority of some sort if they worked in unison, especially when they worked thru the USCCB (as it’s called now.)
But, that’s WRONG. They each have authority in their own diocese according to church law, but they together as a body don’t have authority over the whole continent. That’s false. Do you see what I mean?
The strength of the challenge to the HOly See over juridical power is being broken as we speak!
The USCCB didn’t even exist before Vatican 2. How could it have been traditional? It wasn’t and isn’t.
Most all the teachings and statements you have heard from the bishops have come through the USCCB for most of your memory. However, this is an aberration. And it has hamstrung the bishops, keeping the best of them from doing as they saw fit and causing the worst of them to have power over the rest of them.
This is now being broken!
This is not bad. Let it happen. Each bishops is responsible for his own diocese. He answers to the Vatican properly, just like tradition and law say. Period.
The USCCB was a bishops’ organization founded after Vatican 2, to serve in an advisory-only capacity. It was to offer a way for the bishops to arrange for translations and so on to occur.
It was never meant to become this strong, nor was it ever intended to supplant the Holy See in authority or juridical power. It was never meant to be a “Bishop’s Union” or a power structure. This sort of thing has happened at times in the last 40 years over mass gestures, ICEL, etc.
It also was never meant to constrain all bishops to behave in unison with the worst of the bishops, but indeed, that is what has happened.
We are all better off if it is downgraded by necessity (disagreement, etc.) back to an advisory-only arrangement.
Leave it. I like it. =)
Good and optimistic point, michigancatholic!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 09:23 PM It simply doesn’t matter if they can’t agree. It doesn’t mean that nothing will be done anywhere. It means that the less observant bishops will stick out like a sore thumb. And the rest will be free to follow their consciences.
Well, as free as they can be, providing they are not being constrained in some other way—blackmail etc.
Heh, heh. The funny thing is that it was announced in the same tone as all the dismal announcements of the USCCB are announced in.
So it sounded bad. I had to really stop and think about it to realize it isn’t bad.
THEY probably think it’s bad.
“The USCCB didn’t even exist before Vatican 2.”
You are right, the USCCB didn’t exist in that name. It existed first by the name of ‘National Catholic War Council (NCWC).’ This was formed in 1917.
In 1919, the the bishops organized the National Catholic Welfare Council.
In 1922, the National Catholic Welfare Conference was formed.
This model continued until 1966 when the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) were established.
So, basically, for the better part of a century, there has been a conference to guide and govern the actions of the Catholic Church in America.
michigancatholic, you are grasping at straws looking for a way to discredit the bishops. Your premise is wrong. It only takes roughly 50 years for something to be considered a tradition. Certainly it is not Sacred Tradition, but it is a tradition within the Church. And FYI, collegiality is an aposotlic idea that was resurrected before and during Vatican II, in an attempt to return to the traditions of the early Church. For what do you think that every Council the Church has ever had is? It is a collegial act, of the Epsicopacy.
You also are mis-reading Canon 749 § 2. Collegiality is maintained with Rome at all times, even though the bishops are dispersed.
An article in Crisis by Russell Shaw: http://www.tcrnews2.com/popebishops.html
Here is what Pope John Paul II says in the Apostolic Exhortation PASTORES GREGIS: http://www.tcrnews2.com/CollegialityJP1.html
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 09:30 PM Yes, Cam, but it wasn’t the powerful foe of the Holy See until it was given the organizational push that Cardinal Bernardin gave it.
He organized it into what it has been for the last 30 years or so—an organization to which all the bishops had to belong by local pressure, and to which all the bishops had to give allegiance again by local pressure.
US Bishops were not regarded, among other bishops, of being free in some senses, to disagree with majority opinions of the USCCB.
It was a trade-off in the battle for authority against the Holy See.
I am not at all discrediting the bishops!!!! I am recognizing their just and traditional authority and sovereignity in their own dioceses!!!
And look it up, Cam. The USCCB has no juridical authority of its own. It is merely an advisory organization according to the laws of the Church.
Only the power brokers of American Catholicism tried to parley it into being more.
To this day, it cannot even finalize documents. As you know, they must have the recognitio from Rome to be used. This is just an example.
I’m kind of hoping those bishops who “stand by their Church” will have overflowing coffers in the days ahead….......they sound like the Sanhedrin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 09:49 PM I am not surprised. Why should we expect definitive statements from equivocators. Many of these men forfeit their right to speak as successors of the Apostles. And let’s not bandy about trivial legalisms, if indeed they have any value in a crisis such as this.
Camilam, if you were around in the 1st Century, we all still be waiting for the Messiah.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 09:50 PM Do you guys understand what’s happening???
The conditions that have caused much of the trouble are starting to break up!
michigancatholic,
“He organized it into what it has been for the last 30 years or so—an organization to which all the bishops had to belong by local pressure, and to which all the bishops had to give allegiance again by local pressure.”
Prove it, please.
“The USCCB has no juridical authority of its own.”
No kidding? Really?
“It is merely an advisory organization according to the laws of the Church.”
I think that I said that, when I said, “So, basically, for the better part of a century, there has been a conference to guide and govern the actions of the Catholic Church in America.”
“I am not at all discrediting the bishops!!!!”
Where do you want me to start?!!!
“But there is no church law that says that they must do nothing indefinitely but violate the local laws, play golf and hem & haw about everything.”
“I’m glad I will not be a bishop on judgment day. It’s a tough job and not many of them are doing it well at all.”
“Most all the teachings and statements you have heard from the bishops have come through the USCCB for most of your memory. However, this is an aberration.”
That is just on this thread. Do you want me to go back to other threads? I can.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 09:53 PM Discredit — second definition; To deprive of credibility; to destroy confidence or trust in; to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of.
Seems pretty clear to me. If that is not what you are doing, what exactly are you doing?
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 09:56 PM You are saying that they have no internal compass and no shame, right? That is the whole problem. You are not faulting them for sticking together—they have done that more than fine.
Well, this ruling says exactly this:
An individual bishop’s conscience is to TRUMP the consensus of the whole. In other words, a bishop may obey his conscience and obey the Holy See FIRST.
They do not have to speak together, because they have decided that they cannot. So they are yielding to the more proper authority. Do you not see this?
This is BRAND NEW. This hasn’t happened since before Vatican 2!!!!
“You are saying that they have no internal compass and no shame, right?”
Nope…..where did I say that? I stand by what I have posted. That is what I am saying.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 10:02 PM I am not discrediting the bishops at all, not at all.
I am crediting them with the ability to rule and claim sovereignity over their respective dioceses as tradition and law states.
They are free in conscience to rule as they see fit, respectively, in harmony with the Holy See.
In this decision of the bishops, it is as it is supposed to be.
BTW…the only thing worse than the bishops getting together to define the meaning of “is”......is the S.C. (supreme cowards) getting together to decide to do nothing about the pledge case…they threw it out cause daddy atheist doesn’t have full custody of the kid…....when I heard the news on the car radio I almost went off the road laughing….......................
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 10:08 PM Cam, you are not the only person I am talking to, here. Don’t get your participles in a knot, ok? Smile, it’ll do you good.
Peter, you bet. That’s “rule by a committee”—what we’ve had for 30 or 40 years now.
Maybe this is the turning point away from that. It’s certainly a precedent.
Then we agree…..that is what Jamie and I have been talking about for the last week.
Now, we must come to a greater understanding that we have to be obedient to the teachings on faith and morals of that bishop in this setting (even if it is not an infallible statemtsnt), per Canons 747, 748 749, 752, 753, and 755.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 10:12 PM Oh horse hockey. The bishops are free to rule their own dioceses in union with Rome, as tradition and law state they must.
We obey except in the case where the bishop contradicts Rome clearly and then we don’t have to obey him either.
No one is obliged to drop their pants for their bishop. Good example, unfortunately only too common in the USA.
Good Lord michigancatholic… I’ve rolled my eyes at so many ridiculous statements you’ve made, I’m afraid I’ll have an epileptic seizure!!
“No one is obliged to drop their pants for their bishop”
Thanks for stating the overly obvious. Thanks for once again straying from the topic of the thread to put in child molesting priests. Communion, soul, stay on task and try not to get distracted by sparkly things or abrupt noises.
Jaime
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 10:27 PM Hey you want a list? We’ve had at least six bishops resign in the last 2 years for raping people. Homosexual rapes, I might add.
The point of this thread is precisely what the bishops said at teh end of this meeting—each is free to discern their own decision. They are NOT working as a bloc. AMEN.
They are finally admitting their inability to rule as a bloc. And so the best of them are free to do the right thing. =)
And the worst of them? Well, they will look like the worst of them. No more hiding behind MA USCCB’s skirts.
AMEN.
So you are suggesting that homosexual rapes are worse than just “plain old heterosexual” rapes. Nice..
Was the purpose of the meeting the scandal in the church? No. You have at least 5 other threads to bash the bishops on that (and the awful things you’ve said about the Holy Father) and I won’t disagree with you.
But as soon as Camilam comes up with a sound, thoughtful and correct argument, you’re only option is to go back to the scandal. Why? Because he’s right and you are too stubborn to admit to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 10:37 PM Excuse me, but the meeting did involve the scandal and if you understood what was going on, you would know that, dear misguided lady.
And yes, homosexual rapes are worse than regular rapes. Homosexuality is called an abomination in scripture. Even the psychological damage of a homosexual rape is more severe than that of a regular rape. If you knew either Scripture or psychology, you would know this also.
Cam isn’t right on much of anything at all that I can see. I just spent a week going around and around with him about how pitiful homosexual people feel about their plight and how they think they’d ought to be able to rape anything in sight and get congratulated for it. Well, I think different—along with scripture and the Catholic church. Homosexuality is a sin—a grave sin—the kind that sends people to hell.
Homosexuals have to realize that they have to quit that crap. I know it’s hard. I know it’s not nice to have to quit doing what they like. Oh well. Life ain’t fair and whoever told you it was, well….they were wrong.
The scandals were one of the topics of the bishops’ meeting. And the denial of the Eucharist thing was too. They’re related in case you haven’t noticed.
Recall Chicago and something about a rainbow sash alliance.
Incidentally, Kerry and abortion also are involved in the denial of the Eucharist thing.
It has thrown the USCCB for a loop. And rightly so. They are deeply divided on it.
US bishops have formulated a statement on Catholic pro-abortion politicians going to Communion
Yes I can see where I was misguided (and where I apparently changed my gender)
I’ll just point out the obvious. You haven’t read one word that Camilam (or I) have stated. Nothing in this thread or any other backs up what you’ve just said about us.
Oh and I am sure that you must be a comfort to the female victims of rape. “Hey at least it wasn’t homosexual rape. Whoo you got off lucky”
As for knowing psychology, don’t try me. You are waaay out of your league. I’ll quote the DSM as often as Camilam quotes Canon law
No
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 10:54 PM Sorry about the gender change. I forgot. You know what makes me keep thinking you’re female? The way you spell your name. That’s the girl’s spelling in English, unless maybe if you’re hispanic, I guess.
Anyway, sorry about that.
“The newspaper reported that the meeting of the US bishops’ conference meeting outside Denver this week formulated a statement that attempts to strike a balance between the Church’s clear teaching on the immorality of supporting abortion, while also giving the final say on how to deal with individual politicians to their local bishops. “
Nothing about the rainbow sash, or homosexuals, or priest molestations, or alien abductions either…
No need to apologize michigancatholic. My gender, ethnicity or anything else doesn’t change or diminish the strength of the arguments I post. You can call me a misguided chuwawa for all I care. (Although that would be quite impressive for me to type so quickly with only paws)
I would suggest again, that the rainbow sash and the molestation scandal are being addressed on other threads. You know that since you’ve been posting there. I would not claim to assume Mr Bettinelli’s intentions on posting multiple topics. But if I were to do so, maybe he’s thinking we’ll discuss the actual topics he’s been considerate enough to post
Just a thought. And back on topic, how was Camilam wrong?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/18/04 at 11:26 PM The title of the topic was: “The US bishops decide nothing
My response to it was: “Hey you guys, I just realized something. This is not bad!
Church law and tradition says that each bishop is supposed to be the teacher and father of his own diocese.
For the last 40 years, they have been working under a faulty idea of collegiality, where it was understood by them that they had teaching authority of some sort if they worked in unison, especially when they worked thru the USCCB (as it’s called now.)
But, that’s WRONG. They each have authority in their own diocese according to church law, but they together as a body don’t have authority over the whole continent. That’s false. Do you see what I mean?
The strength of the challenge to the HOly See over juridical power is being broken as we speak!
The USCCB didn’t even exist before Vatican 2. How could it have been traditional? It wasn’t and isn’t.
Most all the teachings and statements you have heard from the bishops have come through the USCCB for most of your memory. However, this is an aberration. And it has hamstrung the bishops, keeping the best of them from doing as they saw fit and causing the worst of them to have power over the rest of them.
<b>This is now being broken!
This is not bad. Let it happen. Each bishop is responsible for his own diocese. He answers to the Vatican properly, just like tradition and law say. Period. “
Cam was the one who started going on about the withholding communion issue—and i quote: “They don’t say anything helpful at all. They just acknowledge that these people shouldn’t go to Communion, but that it’s up to the individual bishop.” From Camilam’s post of 10:21 PM.
So don’t try to twist my words. And let Cam speak for himself. Unless you’re his babysitter or den mother or something.
What happens in the future will happen. It will be quite independent of what you and I say about it, so get down off your high horse, buddy. Just remember this is all talk, and God will have it as he wants it.
I stand by my interpretation of what is going in the USCCB and I have the right to do that.
History will tell the tale, and if you don’t like that, too bad. You can’t change it.
“The US Bishops Decide Nothing”
Other similar headlines from this week include:
“Republican Leaders Praise Reagan”
“Kerry Criticizes Bush; Bush Criticizes Kerry”
The leopard cannot change his spots.
michigancatholic,
“Cam was the one who started going on about the withholding communion issue—and i quote: “They don’t say anything helpful at all. They just acknowledge that these people shouldn’t go to Communion, but that it’s up to the individual bishop.” From Camilam’s post of 10:21 PM.”
That was a quote from Mr. Bettinelli that I forgot to put in qutotation marks. I then responded to it. So, ACTUALLY, I didn’t start “going on” about withholding Communion. I responded to Mr. Bettinelli.
What do you think that this thread is really about? Reception of Holy Communion is precisely what this thread is about. It is you (go back and look) who tries to get off topic. Jaime is right. This has nothing to do with pedophiles.
Speaking of which, I will state this for the first time on this thread, because it now has to be stated, but it is an ad nauseam statement, because you choose not to read what I have posted; I will state it once more.
WHAT A FEW BISHOPS HAVE DONE IN REGARD TO THE SEXUAL SCANDAL IS DEPLORABLE. IT IS A SIN THAT CRIES TO HEAVEN.
That fact does not change the fact that the office of bishop (even in the USA) is part of the Ordinary Magisterium.
Enough of that.
Camilam
P.S. If Jaime wants to say something in my defense, he has every right to do so. I have known him for years. He knows, better than you, what I think. He is not my “babysitter” or “den mother.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 06:20 AM For me, the worst part of this Communion scandal is the sophisticated equivocation of bishops and their court theologians. On one hand, they readily admit that nobody out of communion with the Church should take Communion; but on the other, they invoke “conscience” as a kind of wild card that absolves anybody from anything. If someone is publicly railing against Church teachings - for example, as a junior senator from an important state in the US who calls himself a devout Catholic - how can the invocation of “conscience” make everything okay, especially when everyone knows that he’s invoking “conscience” to save appearances? There’s an elephant in the room and it doesn’t disappear by calling it conscientious . . .
I hope a new generation of theologians will think seriously about conscience and make more sense of it than the reigning powers and principalities in chanceries and theology departments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 06:26 AM michigancatholic,
Stop with the fallacious statements. It is not good form and does nothing to help with your credibility either.
When you get off topic and start with pedophilia, which this thread has nothing to do with, you are committing a red herring.
Don’t tell me you don’t do it. The purpose of this thread is the bishop’s decision on Catholic politicians who should or should not receive Holy Communion. You then abruptly shift to pedophilia.
You don’t think so? You and I were talking about the bishop’s role in the context of the USCCB and then you suddenly shift to pedophilia.
“Oh horse hockey. The bishops are free to rule their own dioceses in union with Rome, as tradition and law state they must. We obey except in the case where the bishop contradicts Rome clearly and then we don’t have to obey him either. No one is obliged to drop their pants for their bishop. Good example, unfortunately only too common in the USA.”
That is a red herring. It is fallacious. What is a red herring? A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
So, Jaime was quite right to call you back to task.
Getting back on topic, I asked you to prove a statement, so please prove this about the USCCB, with facts, not your opinion. “He organized it into what it has been for the last 30 years or so—an organization to which all the bishops had to belong by local pressure, and to which all the bishops had to give allegiance again by local pressure.”
Thanks,
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 06:43 AM peterforrester,
“On one hand, they readily admit that nobody out of communion with the Church should take Communion; but on the other, they invoke “conscience” as a kind of wild card that absolves anybody from anything.”
Conscience is not a wild card. It is what governs our thinking and it is the basis for our assent to the faith. Now, this conscience must be rightly formed, but cannot ever be compromised. This is catechetical teaching. Look it up. It is free will.
Next, our assent to the faith does not necessarily mean that we understand what we are assenting to. This is in Canon Law and a Thomistic principle. It is reiterated by John Henry Cardinal Newman, in ‘A Grammar of Assent.’
A great example is: Cardinal Newman was very opposed to Vatican I proclaiming papal infallibility. However, once the Council proclaimed this, he became a staunch defender.
So, conscience is not a wild card, but rather the basis on which we assent our faith. The caveat is that the conscience must be formed correctly. If it is not, then it must be catechized.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 06:51 AM I perfectly well understand that conscience is not really a wild card. Our Holy Father in my opinion brilliantly made that point with Veritatis Splendor. Unfortunately however some bishops and theologians often speak of conscience as if it were a wild card absolving all of all. Unlike Newman, many of these leaders continue to take their bearings from 1968 when conscience was invoked not infrequently to ignore the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Of course I do not agree with them; pardon me if my comment suggested otherwise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 06:59 AM michigancatholic,
You say, “I stand by my interpretation of what is going in the USCCB and I have the right to do that.
History will tell the tale, and if you don’t like that, too bad. You can’t change it.”
History has spoken many, many times. Why do you think that we have had Councils in the Church? The Church has always (and always will) come together when needed.
An example: St. Augustine of Hippo taught that infants who died before baptism were condemned to hell. He was teaching in his diocese. This started to gain international fame. The other bishops disagreed with St. Augustine, so they said as much. St. Augustine disagreed and an intellectual fight started. The bishops convened a council and limbo was defined. St. Augustine accepted this as teaching, because of the rule of the Ordinary Magisterium.
So, I do know that time will tell the tale. But your interpretation is not quite right. Because it is yours and not that of the Church. If you think that it is, I ask you to give facts to back your opinion.
Thanks,
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 07:03 AM peter,
“Our Holy Father in my opinion brilliantly made that point with Veritatis Splendor.”
I hold the same opinion.
In this forum, you must be very clear though, perception is everything. Just a bit of advice.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 07:06 AM MC… I believe I see your point. The bishops agreed to disagree and will not issue a monolithic physical action directive under the auspice of the usccb. Each bishop is free to decide for his own diocese in this matter. It seems commonsense, but it is a breakthrough as I see it since it means Bishop Burke is fine and Cardinal McCarrick is fine - they both as individual bishops trump the bloc usccb directive of deciding a specific action on this matter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 07:12 AM Coll,
You are quite right. Thanks for that. We came to this understanding early this morning.
When I say to michigancatholic, “Then we agree…..that is what Jamie and I have been talking about for the last week.” Your point is precisely what we agreed on.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 07:31 AM I see the results of the NCCB meeting as the equivalent of military strategy: divide and conquer.
I see it as evidence of an internal war that is escalating.
michigancatholic,
Jaime asked, “how was Camilam wrong?”
I am curious. Remember, use facts….I don’t care about your personal feelings toward me. You don’t define me or my academic soundness or accused lack thereof. (that is an ad hominem)
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 08:00 AM An article from the NY Times : http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/national/19BISH.final.html?pagewanted=2&hp;
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 09:37 AM Hey michigancatholic,
I’m with you. The USCCB was formed so that the US bishops could be ‘independent’ to some degree of Rome - and deal with things in a ‘uniquely’ American way. The result of that, over these past few decades? Idiotic watered down catechism, almost across the board, an acquiesence to the almost complete disregard for sin and its consequences, a rejection of Humanae Vitae, for all practical purposes, a complete and total (homo) sexual holocaust within the Church in America, and a sexual holocaust within American society, ‘Catholic’ universities and theologians who are completely hostile to Catholic teaching, the formation of scads of committees and studies and all sorts of things that are completely and totally irrelevant to the average Catholic, and of course, millions upon millions of lost souls and murdered babies.
This most recent exposition of their irrelevance - not being able to come up with a position on a matter of central importance (30 years after it became a matter of central importance) - is, as you say, actually good - for it will give the few principled and faithful bishops a chance to do what they should, without the bothersome and noisome intercessions of the ruinous bishops’ council. It is, as you say, a ray of hope for our beleagured and trodden down and wayward Church here in America.
The Council members can now go back to doing their irrelevant and damaging things, and the real bishops can start doing their real job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 11:08 AM Sinner,
“Idiotic watered down catechism, almost across the board, an acquiesence to the almost complete disregard for sin and its consequences, a rejection of Humanae Vitae, for all practical purposes, a complete and total (homo) sexual holocaust within the Church in America, and a sexual holocaust within American society, ‘Catholic’ universities and theologians who are completely hostile to Catholic teaching, the formation of scads of committees and studies and all sorts of things that are completely and totally irrelevant to the average Catholic, and of course, millions upon millions of lost souls and murdered babies.”
Whoa, whoa, whoa…..prove your points sir. Where is the Catechism watered down? Where is there a disregard to sin? Where has Humane Vitae been rejected, for all practical purposes? And where is the sexual scandal “complete?”
I daresay, most bishops would disagree with you, including Cardinals George and Rigali; Archbishops Chaput, Burke, and Flynn; Bishops Sheridan, Olmstead, Bruskewitz, Sullivan and DiNardo.
As soon as you give sound, factual proof to your claims, in regard to PRECISELY what you have said, you can be taken seriously.
As for the idea that the bishops have authority in their own See and that the purpose of the USCCB is as an advisory body, we totally agree.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 11:57 AM After days of meeting on a contentious and very serious topic - one which has not been addressed for some 30 years - at least with regard to the issue of abortion, the bishops finally came to the judgment that, well, they just can’t make a judgment.
In the meantime, unrepentant and public promoters of baby murder and other horrific sins ingest the Body of Christ during Mass…
Par for the course in our American Catholic Church…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 02:00 PM Coll, you have it, yes. That is exactly the interesting part. *That* has not occurred since before Vatican 2. This may signal a very big change in the works. For sure, it does establish a precedent—an important one, too.
Cam (and Jaime too, since you seem to be together), this is getting unpleasant, so think what you want, but I’m done arguing with you. I have better things to do.
I’ll be posting and talking to others from time to time—but please knock off the agressive attacks on everything I say. You are free to state what you think but, my friend, so am I.
And as I reminded you before, we’re not exactly determining the fate of the world here. This is a friendly little discussion and should stay that way. I doubt that Domenico wants real dissension on his blog.
michigancatholic,
I don’t find it unpleasant at all. I find it rather stimulating. You (and everyone else, Jaime included) are forcing me to postulate valid and sound arguments in defense of Holy Mother Church.
If you can’t answer my questions, that is fine, I understand, but please don’t back off the issues in a backsliding way. Just simply say I don’t know…..Or if you agree, say it, I am not a monster, I am simply a Catholic who is taking a hard, honest look at what is going on with the Church.
If you take my being straightforward and calling a spade a spade, being unpleasant so-be-it. But don’t brush it off as “I have better things to do.”
“I doubt that Domenico wants real dissension on his blog.” Where am I dissenting from the Church? I am actually being consistent with Holy Mother Church and her bishops. It is you who don’t agree with her. So, are you speaking about yourself?
I won’t apologize for challenging you, but I will apologize if you think that I am being to harsh. I am simply, being straightforward. That is how I am. I don’t joke about my salvation. I don’t get cute about it either. Jaime may, but I cannot do it. I am too much of an academic to do that. Jaime will agree.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/19/04 at 07:23 PM Okay, why doesn’t everybody throttle it back a notch. This blog is threatening to collapse under the weight of three people’s constant posting. Other readers are telling me that they don’t bother reading the threads because they’re full of the same two or three people going round and round to no end.
Posted by About the “watered-down catechism”—notice that it is not capitalized. Of course the Catechism hasn’t been watered down - somewhat difficult to do that as Rome controls the text.
But CCD in the U.S. is incredibly watered down, and you spend most of your time singing “Jesus loves me” and how we should be nice to poor people. I don’t remember ever learning about the Mass or the Real Presence. All I remember performing puppet shows of some gospel stories in 4th grade, and getting disgusted with my class in 10th grade (we were supposed to break into discussion groups over how we were supposed to be nice to people, or whatever variation that week, but the girls would spend most of the time proclaiming how drunk they were last Saturday, and they were amazed how they got home.) So I didn’t get confirmed til 10 years later.
But back to the original topic - I think michigancatholic is right to look on the bright side here. This is one issue, at least, that the fearful bishops cannot hide behind the pronouncements of the USCCB, and those who want to address the scandal of pro-abortionism can without the laity crying “But the USCCB said….” And perhaps this conciliar indecision will spread to other areas.
Bishops should be individually accountable for their pronouncements and the enforcement of sound doctrine. It is a good thing to hold Bishops individually accountable instead of some faceless committee. So the faceless committee agrees that this is so. A win. We agree. cfeicht
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 06:49 AM cfeicht,
“Bishops should be individually accountable for their pronouncements and the enforcement of sound doctrine.”
Why? The Church has never held that view. There has always been an idea of collegiality.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 09:34 AM Agreed, Domenico. I’ll be posting occasionally but I am not interested in the “peeing matches” that seem to be going on now in here either.
MC the winner by an astronomical light year! I am waiting for Cdl George to call Daley & Durbin out—stay tuned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 10:01 AM tony,
“MC the winner by an astronomical light year!”
Winner of what? I didn’t know we were in a competition.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 10:10 AM Cam,I stand by my statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 10:20 AM michigancatholic (and anyone else for that matter),
“how was Camilam wrong?
Posted by: Jaime on Jun 19, 04 | 2:26 am”
I am still waiting for factual proof that I am incorrect in my assertation. Or am I correct?
No “peeing match,” just a question Jaime asked in all humility. And I re-iterate in the same fashion.
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 10:32 AM tonymixan,
michigancatholic could not “win” do the the fallacy that was committed earlier,
“That is a red herring. It is fallacious. What is a red herring? A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.”
So, to use your terms, michigancatholic cannot possibly be correct.
Thanks,
Camilam
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/20/04 at 10:36 AM Enough! All you are doing is the equivalent of “You’re wrong! No, you’re wrong!”
I am not surprised by the bishops stance. The Church in America has been in decline for decades. These weak men have not been Shepherds.
I do understand that each bishop has authority and the USCCB is a left wing group with no authority, accept when it agress with Rome, but can’t these men see that souls hang in the balance? They approach every issue like a politician.
For me it always goes back to one question. Why Does Rome not put aside collegiality for one second and force the bishops to stand with Christ or be replaced?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06/21/04 at 10:33 AM I find it rather ironic that they admitted in their statement that those who cooperate in abortion have put themselves outside the life of the Church, but they can’t decide whether or not to deny Communion.
Oh well, at least they didn’t reprimand the bishops who took a courageous stand.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
