The Cardinal Newman Society is crying foul over what they call a misleading attack on them by Catholic News Service. The society says CNS raises the unattributed allegation they are setting up a parallel magisterium. Looks like some people, perhaps including people within the US bishops’ conference, of which CNS is a part, are unhappy that the society has been very vocal about abuses in Catholic colleges, including performance of the V-Monologues, as well as perceived criticism of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, DC.
Patrick Reilly, president of the society, gave a talk at Georgetown University recently on whether that institution could accurately still be called Catholic. During that talk the topic of whether to complain about it to McCarrick was raised and the reporter said:
“In a question-and-answer session following his talk, Reilly said that people who want to complain about the situation at Georgetown may be better off waiting a few years before raising the issue with the Washington Archdiocese because it is currently headed by Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick.”
Reilly disputes that contention and in fact said people should complain to the cardinal.
(Disclosure: An expanded version of Reilly’s presentation at Georgetown will appear in an upcoming issue of Catholic World Report.)
Conflict of interest; the bully pulpit
I wonder if this has anything to do with a lawsuit over the use of the initials CNS.
If the bishops acted like bishops, the laity would be less inclined to usurp their episcopal leadership roles. Nature abhors a vacuum and humans abhor a leadership vacuum most. Cardinal Newman should be forewarned, they can expect censure or expulsion from the diocese next.
The USCCB CNS has more ink and money than the Cardinal Newman CNS and the ultimate trump card is “removal from diocesan property order”, which is on deck. The only thing in their favor is that most if not all catholic colleges are not part of the diocese but watch and see how many sign on to that “Mandatem”.
In other words, Daniel, bankrupt the Cardinal Newman Society by an expensive lawsuit, and the mandatum goes away? I think it could be said that the mandatum makes the Bishops look neglegent, or even complicit in heresy. Are we seeing more legal maneuvering out of the USCCB, reminiscent of the legal maneuvering over abusive priests?
Looks once again like they have too much money at their disposal. The only cure for that is to defund the USCCB.
But maybe I’ve simply misunderstood what you’ve written. I haven’t been following this story.
No Carrie, The USCCB was justly defeated in court. I am a fan of Cardinal Newman. The USCCB is probably not happy about their defeat and the role that CNS has in shining light on the mandatum issue. Neither are some catholic colleges. Now I suspect that they (USCCB) may seek to oppress CNS by issuing a directive that they (CNS) may not be on diocesan property. Most catholic colleges are not on diocesan property, but I would bet the ranch that the colleges would react to such an act with considerable zeal (as contrasted to their zeal for the mandatum) and supress CNS as well. This is how it works sometimes. Just look at M. Angelica at EWTN or
With a play on words, I was suggesting that the suppression of CNS is a mandatum that colleges like G-town would heartily embrace. Maybe I should stick to physics as my satire is not working too well.
What I find so funny is that out of hundreds of dissenting organization they latch on to the Cardinal Newman Society with a charge of a “parallel magisterium”.
Somebody must be touchcy that the truth is beint exposed.
Actually, look at EWTN, Daniel! Speaks with greater authority than the USCCB, I’d say. As I recall from Mother A’s biography that I read several years ago, it was an uphill battle to get EWTN started, but look at it now. I will always see Mother A’s healing as God’s pronouncement of Cdl. Mahony’s objections.
The USCCB can’t order bishops to ban the CNS.
Well, things will be different in a few years I hope.
Carrie mentions to “defund the USSCB”. This theme keeps coming back and rightly so.
The faithful should defund unfaithful bishops, pastors, priests, etc in order to battle the war against the defilement and shame they bring to the person of the Church.
When will the people of God fully realize that ‘money” is the only rightful power that will be effective to get the much needed reform of the Church leadership failing the Teaching Magisterium in all aspects.
How can the bishops be defunded, though? They “tax” the parishes in some diocese. It’s not like there is a choice for the pastors. A portion of every dollar dropped in the collection basket is theirs. My husband likes to remind me regularly that as long as I’m contributing to my parish, I’m failing to correct the sexual abuse crisis and so I should not be complaining about it. He’s not entirely wrong.
Yet we are obligated to support the parish by the Commandments of the Church; and we are conscience bound to support our own parish and pastor.
When this sort of doublebind arises for renters, a rent strike is arranged with a lawyer and an escrow account. I’ve often wondered if something of this sort could be worked out by a Catholic lawyer and a Canonist whereby the parishes can avoid the chancery tax while still supporting their parish and pastor.
The only protest I have found is to withhold contributions to Catholic Charities, making those contributions directly to a charity instead.
Does anyone have any ideas how to defund the USCCB without bankrupting the parish? Because until we find some way to do it, it will be business as usual among the bishops, as the headlines keep demonstrating.
Carrie, your husband is correct.
We are in a “war” against failing leadership who are by their vocation to defend and promote the Teaching Magisterium. To defend and promote and defend the moral teachings of the Church. To dispense the just penalties against injustices.
And in all “wars”, the innocent suffer no matter how much we would like not to have this happen.
We have to start the “domino” effect. Defund the parish which is the life blood of the bishops. The bishops funds become less, then things will begin to happen.
How circumvent the bishop? The starting point is the local parish.
Unfortunately, forget the canon lawyer help. I don’t think any will avail themselves.
A parish needs a strong leader to organize the people. He or they need to have the people with-hold their weekly contribution. Keep it in a personal account or just keep it at home. Tell the pastor that he will get money to pay the local bills that are needed to maintain the local parish along with his weekly or monthly pay.
This would be a beginning.
The problem is that such a dramatic change in the life of the parish, very few will be unwilling to go thru this method, since it will look like a “revolt” of a bunch of rebels——
The sacrifices involved, community-wise, and individual-wise are going to demand the greates amount of courage, committment, and a genuine deep love of defending the faith.
Where else to begin. Who have a better starting point??? Help
Those who don’t frequent Catholic blogs are not that well versed in the state of our leadership. My parish is conservative. Were I the kind of person who could lead such an endeavor, I would find little support in my parish for it; and in any case, I am not that sort of person. I doubt any pastor could lend his support. The best one could hope for is silence from the pastor. Without pastoral support, a conservative parish will not cooperate. Without pastoral support such an effort will look like another VOTF.
Were the Pope to suggest such an effort, the whole parish would probably leap to join. But I haven’t even a dream that could happen.
Blanchard is echoing what I’ve posted on here several times. The bishop won’t let his parish go bankrupt, in a lot of cases the bishop has grown acustomed to a certain style of living and when he is faced with a dramatic change in lifestyle (not in a brokeback kind of way though)he’ll eventually capitulate.
The mantra “no dogma, no dollars” will eventually hit home. I firmly believe that is the only thing they understand.
If you’re concerend about supporting the Church that can easily be accomplished by donating your money to a charity specifically vice through the USCCB or your diocese. Better yet, donate your money to an order that you know is loyal to the magisterium and send a copy of the check to your local ordinary so he can see where that money went instead of to him.
The charity goes both ways. The bishops are bound to support the Church and the Magisterium. It’s a contract of sorts. We can know objectively when they are not and when they are not they no longer deserve our support.
Carrie,
Pardon for the incorrect pharsing—-“Who have”. It should have been—“Who has”
Thank you for your posting. Perhaps, without intending, you have clearly shown the problem.
The faithul, in general, are very uneducated in the faith as a result of the leadership. They faithful have been cleverly been trained to be molded so as to be kept always “in the palm of the hands” of the leadership.
Even the “conservative” pastors and priests are controlled by the leadership. Rock the boat and “your out Fr. so and so: pastor so and so.
No one today have a strong enough faith, to be living martyrs. And this is what is needed today.
Of course, all of this would not be an issue if there were bishops like Bruskerwiz—I cannot remember how to correctly spell his name. But I’m sure you know whom I mean.
So, I guess the only thing to do on an individual basis is let the pastor know that one will only give a minimal contribution just to help pay a few pennies for the parish maintenace bills.
And like yourself, we give to a chairty that we know—-like the pro-life group in our area. When the annual pledge to the bishop’s fund comes, we fill in the amount pledged. Then we state that it is going to “Problem Pregnancy” in a separate check.
Dom, would you be able to have somebody look over the USCCB’s financial statements and give some commentary? It’s interesting to note that the Conference is sitting on over $100 million in securities, of which about $40 million seems to be held for the CCHD, a program that dispenses less than $8M per year.
At the bishops’ meetings, there’s usually some whining about the slight budget cuts the conference has had to make in the past 2-3 years.
let the pastor know that one will only give a minimal contribution just to help pay a few pennies for the parish maintenace bills.
It would be sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face, though. My pastor has worked hard to hold the line—to remain orthodox within the parameters he could get away with. To defund the parish would feel traitorous. My conscience would keep me up at night. No pastor is perfect in this climate, but I’ve thanked God many times for the one I have. What I need is a way to keep funding the parish while withholding the bishop’s share. There doesn’t seem to be one.
You might look into whether special-purpose parish collections are subject to the diocesan tax.
Carrie,
You have to live with your conscience and do the best you can. God bless you.
What a shame that a “good pastor” has only the ability—“to remain orthodox within the parameters he could get away with.”
This is my view only—and will be looked upon “as harsh and heartless”,—- but this is where “martydom” comes into place—- he and all other priest like him ought to let the bishop know that they are leaving the diocese and go where they can be “fully orlthodox”. All hell should let loose by the people loosing such good priests and the bishop would then bring about the reforms needed.
In the culture in which we live, this is only an “impossible dream”.
The real irony here is that the Cardinal Newman Club (who protests the lack of orthodoxy at many so-called Catholic institutions) is being attacked by the CNS ran by the Catholic Bishops.
If the Cardinal Newman Society has given serious thought to the hiring of bishops to run the Church, maybe they’d be just as vocal in criticism of that as about college professors. If I compared the average Catholic college with the average Catholic bishop and I don’t think they would be very far apart. Both of them are supposed to be under the Pope’s command, but most of both groups ignore him consistently. What’s the difference?
If you want orthodoxy, bring back tradition. As long as “traditional Catholics” are considered as some kind of weird growth on the neck of the Church, lack of orthodoxy will OF COURSE be a problem since faithfulness to tradition is the only guard against lack of orthodoxy.
This is like reading the history of the years just before the Reformation. Corruption gave us the Reformation and we’re unfortunately going to get another event like it in this century if the church can’t control the corruption we have now.
The USCCB has set itself up as an alternate magisterium and I owe them nothing. Only the local bishop and the Vatican are important in any particular see, including this one. The USCCB has no juridical authority whatsoever by law.
As Carrie says, we are still obliged to ‘contribute to the support of our pastor’.
If I were in this position, I would give to the priest, personally, a stipend, the equivalent of my weekly donation, and ask him to say a Mass for the poor souls in purgatory. I think the priest is still allowed to keep his stipend, that it is not ‘subject to taxation’ and he will be none the poorer, but less would go to the chancery.
It wouldn’t take too many parishoners’ doing this to make an impact. And the priest need not even know why you are doing it, so he is not penalized for his orthodoxy.
Keep in mind that not every diocese taxes its parishes. In Boston, no parish money goes to the archdiocese. All archdiocese funds are raised by the Annual Appeal. It makes such distinctions much easier. You should find out what is the case in your diocese before making any decisions.
From the minutes of a meeting of a local parish’s pastoral coucil meeting…
“Archdiocese will be taking over finances of every parish. They will pay all bills out of parish funds. Payroll service will be used to process employees payroll. “
All “monies” that any bishop has with which to work, that is, to run the diocese, comes from the local parish.
The bishop or the chancery or whatever you want to name it, does not have a single penny that does not have as its foundation the contributions made by the faithful.
They may claim that much of the money comes from investments, from insurances. Where did they get the money to invest, to pay the premiums???
I would suppose that the only money that could be excluded is that given by some wealthy individual, directly to the bishop or diocese.
No one has an obligation to support corruption, mis-use of power that undermines the faith, the liturgy, the moral teaching of the Church. If a spiritual leader is failing in his duty, then the obligation ceases to support that leadership.
The with-holding money to gain power, to change the make up of the Church is wrong. It should be used as a means to make the leadership aware that the faithful want committment to the Teaching Magisterium in all aspects of the Church’s life. After all, we have a duty, an obligation made at Baptism, at Confirmation to defend and protect the Living Church, our faith.
Bibiana, in my diocese the Mass stipend is set at $10. That is meant to be a minimum, but could be invoked if a priest accepted more than that as well. Also, the Boston priest who accepted contributions from his parish was censored. To set up any sort of financial arrangement that would keep money out of the chancery would require the courts to be involved and something formal and legal—such as an escrow account—to be used.
The controls on money are as tight as the controls on orthodoxy are loose. But it is also true that the only source of cash is the parishioner in the pew. Contributions are taken for granted, but the legal system is useless to recover them if the man in the pew decides to withhold. We can’t be “taxed” by the bishops if we decide we won’t contribute. We will just ultimately lose our parish. When it comes down to the bottom line, we have a parish at the sufferance of the bishop who has dictitorial control over it.
Bishops have ultimate power, which is a gift if the faith is being attacked from without and a curse if the faith is being attacked from within.
Respectfully, I present the following view—-
Bishops do not have ultimate power.
The only one who has full and supreme power as head of the Church is the Holy Father.
The local bishop is the only one who has prime authority in his diocese. No other bishop or assembly of bishops have rule in his diocese.
Only the Holy Father has a say in any bishop’s diocese.
By their calling Bishops have the mission to “serve” the people of God, administer the Sacraments, promote and defend the teaching of Revealation, Scripture, Tradition and the Teaching Magisterium.
Canon Law——
Can. 375 §1 By divine institution, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who is given to them. They are constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance.
§2 By their episcopal consecration, Bishops receive, together with the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of ruling, which however, by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.
#2 is very important—in particular-“by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members”
Hence, if there is clear evidence that a bishop or pastor or priest is not “one with the Holy Father, then the power of ruling or governing is nullified.
The faithful have and are being kept in ignorance of their “rights”, since no bishop or pastor is willing to inform or educate the faithful in these matters. The Holy Father teaches always as a “servant of the people”, but not so other spiritual leaders.
Ok, does this violate Canon 375?
Carrrie, if this mission statement means that the diocese supports or recognizes the legitimacy of the homosexual life style, then that diocese is not in accord with the Teaching Magisterium.
Ok, this is now way off topic. If you want to continue the discussion of withholding donations from parishes and bishops. Please do so in the Discussion Forum. That way those who want to discuss the CNS v. CNS story can do so here and those who don’t want to keep getting email notifications of new messages about donations won’t have to.
Sorry, Dom.
In full agreement, Dom