Some people object to my criticism of Cardinal McCarrick who apparently agreed to hold a “listening session” with members of the Rainbow Sash Movement this fall. (We only have the sash-ayers word for that; I haven’t seen anything confirming it from the archdiocese of Washington yet.) I contend that by meeting with them on their termsvity outside of marriage, is seriously wrong.”
Exactly.
Mr. Bettinelli,
I agree wholeheartedly with Bishop Olmstead. I cannot state that any more clearly.
He has given clear teaching from his position as a pastor and a teacher. Perhaps we need to wait and see if Cardinal McCarrick et al., will do the same.
Again, as I have said, I am not in disagreement with what you have said.
Camilam
Your points are well-taken, Dom. In any situation requiring leadership whether as a parent, teacher, military officer, or religious leader, it is critical that difficult situations be dealt with clearly, unambiguously and immediately. Giving mixed messages, obfuscating, and postponement only create worse consequences for all.
I’m all for any trustworthy and faithful Catholic, priest, bishop or cardinal speaking God’s truth to unrepentant sinners, out of love, for that is our duty. I do not trust our current batch of cardinals and bishops, and therefore worry that the situation will be mucked up and worsened. I will cheer if McCarrick can be like Olmstead.
If it is called a listening session, then the agenda has been set by those who value sodomy. The Cardinal should say he will meet with them to share the splendor of the Truth. He should say he will meet with them to make an attempt to change their hearts back toward the Church. He should say he will meet with them to show them why they are in grave error.
If he says all that, then he will be helping them and the rest of the Church. He he compromises or allows their agenda to rule the day, then he is not acting to further God’s kingdom.
What is the reason for delaying the meeting until the fall?
If it is so important for the Cardinal to do his duty and communicate the truth to these people, why delay?
Aren’t they going to keep showing up at Mass during the interim?
Arnold Schwarzennegger does attend St. Monica’s Parish in Santa Monica, CA. He splits his time each week between Sacramento and the Los Angeles area, so he likely does make it to St. Monica’s from time-to-time.
St. Monica’s is an interesting parish in that it is extremely active and has several priests. It is particularly well known for its young adults group, and it also happens to be one of the wealthiest parishes in the archdiocese, with connections not only to Schwarzennegger, but also to a former mayor of Los Angeles and a former prominent candidate for governor.
Sadly though, the Masses are not reverant, and there is a homosexual group at the church that has been advertised by the priests during Mass. Donors names are also displayed prominently at a shrine to St. Joseph . . . more prominently than St. Joseph’s name!
Could they be fighting so hard for marriage because then they feel that their mode of sex will be okay???
No sex outside of marriage!!!
Ginny
Hunter and Grizzly are walking through the woods and they meet each other face to face. To the surprise of Hunter, Grizzly cordially extends his paws and says, “Maybe we can get along. We’re basically reasonable beings. We just have a few misunderstandings. Let’s dialogue.” Hunter says, “I suppose there’s no harm in that. You look reasonable enough.” Then, he shakes the bear’s paw, sits down and props his gun on a tree stump. Grizzly leans his shoulder on a tree, saying, “I’m looking for lunch. How about you?” Hunter replies, “I’m looking for a fur coat.” Next scene—Grizzly walks away, licking chops. He says, “Well that worked out. He got his fur coat.”
Perhaps the meeting will be moderated by McCarrick’s “nephew.”
I agree with bishop Olmsted, especially with his point that we need to meet with sinners one on one.
Cute story, MIC, but it demonizes sinners, whom unlike bears, are human beings in need of conversion.
Hardhead, do you think the bishop should give his purpose up front? Why would they meet with him if they knew what he was trying to do? He should say those things, but at the end of their meeting, when they have no opportunity to refuse his saving message.
Eric,
More scandal if the cardinal allows such a meeting to leave a question in the minds of the public as to what the Church teaches. As I have said before, we are in such dire straits because bishops have compromised the faith and not publicly preached the truth of Christ. As the old saying goes…error has no rights.
Correct, hardhead.
Just as Jesus’ meeting with sinners left questions in the minds of the Pharisees about what he taught.
Error has no rights, but people in error do.
Not rights that enable them to say evil is good and good is evil. There are no such rights.
Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I agree, error has no right to be taught.
But, what exactly is your point in quoting Corinthians 9?
No way. ROFLOL.
Sin has no rights, proper. Those who persistently engage in the sins listed here will not inherit the kingdom of God, this line of Scripture says.
People who engage in them may have earthly political rights—the kind they win by force or money—but those kinds of political rights don’t mean a hill of beans from the depths of hell, Eric. They are man-made.
How can I possibly make this more plain?
The phrase “sin has no rights” has a specific meaning. It means that sin does not have a status of its own as a good thing to be considered. It is not a thing so much as it is the negative of a thing.
Yes, it is an act, but by definition it is a failure. The consequence of the opposite of virtue.
So something which is a sin can never be right in itself. That is: There is no right way to do a bad thing. Another way to say it is: You can’t do a bad thing to get a good outcome, because bad things can’t morally be done on purpose.
Does that help?
This is why moral proportionalism (cost benefit analyses in morals) are wrong. And why the principle of double effect can be right when moral proportionalism is wrong.
Do you think I disagree with you on these points, MIC?
I feel like you are trying to convince me that homosexuality is wrong, but I’m in vehement agreement with you on this point. These are sinners who must be converted to Christ and to chastity. Our first priority must be converting sinners like these to Christ, which includes convincing them to stop sinning, which includes ceasing to engage in homosexual sex. Surely we agree on this point?
My disagreement with you is on the most effective approach of achieving this aim when confronting sinners, especially hostile ones, on an individual basis.
MIC,
I noticed that you stopped at verse 10. Here is what verse 11 says:
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This means two things:
1) These sinners were converted. Yes, even the male prostitutes and swindlers were converted. Conversion of sinners is possible, and it is the highest goal we must pursue.
2) Paul is not telling sinners they are going to Hell. Rather, he is telling the converted that the sinners are going to Hell (if they don’t repent). Why? So that they will convert the sinners. Now, lest you think I am being soft, I am not arguing that sinners should not be warned of the consequences of their sin (cf. Eze 3:18), nor am I arguing that these things should not be firmly preached from the pulpit and by the catechist, nor am I even arguing you should not ever tell a sinner he is going to Hell; rather, I am arguing that it is simplistic to believe that if you only tell a sinner he is going to Hell without listening to him or addressing his particular stumbling-blocks, that he is going to respond to that and be saved.
Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:20)
People in error have no rights to do the wrong thing, ever. They may have the freedom, but they have no right to sin.
It would be good for the Cardinal to preach the truth to these folks. I hope he does. Telling the truth is not always enough. Was it St. Augustine who said to accept Church teachings first, then try to understand them if possible? These folks do not want to accept. They want the Church to accept their sins.
“Just as Jesus’ meeting with sinners left questions in the minds of the Pharisees about what he taught. “
Another false analogy. Scandal is a sin. Causing the faithful to loose faith or weaken their faith due to politicing is not the same as Jesus confounding those hypocrites.
Hardhead,
You say, “People in error have no rights to do the wrong thing, ever. They may have the freedom, but they have no right to sin.”
I would disagree and agree. I disagree with the first sentence and agree with the second. Here is why….
Those people who are Protestant are in error, and in a religious sense do the wrong thing. So, according to your logic, they have “no rights to do the wrong thing, ever.” I disagree. Protestants are fallen creatures. They sin. However, most Protestants are genuinely seeking the truth. They have imperfect knowledge, which makes them wrong, but they most certainly have rights, even within the Church.
The second point, I totally agree with. We have free will. But we have no right to sin. For what is the definion of sin, is most simply put, not trusting in the Lord.
So, while it may seem like semantics, it is a very important distinction to make.
Camilam
I do not follow your logic. My last post was in reference to someone claiming the sinners had a right to error. They have no such right. There is no right to sin. There is freedom to sin, but no right.
You drag Protestantism into this debate. I see no analogy. If a protestant comimits a sin they are free to, but have no right to sin. No one has a right to sin, no one. Protestantism is a heresy. You are confusing invincible ignorance with sin. They are not the same. If a Protestant sins they are no different than if a Catholic sins. Neither has a right to sin.
Hardhead,
You said, “My last post was in reference to someone claiming the sinners had a right to error.” Who is claiming that sinners have a right to error? (Aside: I am not not sure if you are speaking of a right to err, or a right to hold error. )
I said three things: Error has no rights, people in error do have rights, and error has no right to be taught. None of this involves any claim that sinners have a right to err or to hold error.
The reason I say that “people in error do have rights” is not to assert that they have either the right to err or the right to hold error. It is to underscore what the Catechism says, “[Homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (2358) Sometimes people who say “error has no rights” tend to act as if they actually think that people in error have no rights. That is a pernicious interpretation of this idea. People in error have the right, at the very least, to be loved, to hear the Gospel in a way that is suitable to their disposition and to have an opportunity for conversion, and to be treated with respect and compassion.
Hardhead,
If I am reading Camilam correctly, he is saying that Protestants are in error because Catholicism is the true faith. He’s not dragging Protestants in on sin, but on error of belief.
I do have a question though about what you folks are referring to by speaking of rights. Usually when I hear people say “error has no rights”, they are referring to rights under civil law, but we have not been discussing civil law. (This issue typically arises when discussing what to do with heretics in a Catholic country.)
If you are merely arguing that sinners have no moral right to sin, well, duh—that should be obvious. (This is why we need to convert them to virtue.) If you arguing that those in error must forsake their error, then again, this is obvious, and again, highlights the importance of working for their conversion to the truth.
If you are arguing that we must stop the propagation of error and eradicate it, I am wholeheartedly with you on that. The first method we should use to do this is to work to convert those who are in error.
Pray for conversion!
Eric,
I know what you are saying. You have said the same damn thing over and over… BUT YOU ARE NOT THINKING.
SUPPOSE that the dialogue you want occurs. SUPPOSE that the gay organization leaders get to talk and the Cardinal gets to talk at some meeting that is scheduled.
SUPPOSE that Cdl McCarrick behaves as though he belongs to the Catholic Church and tells the gay organization leaders what the Catholic Church’s real doctrines are—specifically that homosexuality is a disordered condition and homosexual sex is a mortal sin. (Those ARE our doctrines on this topic—see the Catechism for proof.)
SUPPOSE the gay organization leaders don’t like the doctrines. WHAT HAPPENS THEN????
THINK!
DO YOU THINK that they will just leave and be happy about it???
DO YOU THINK that they will protest some more???? (Wow, dialogue really works.)
Camilam, part of the problem that you are having is due to the fact you are not being technically precise at all. Some of the things you have written are just wrong, and wrong because they are imprecise. They are glosses on the truth, not the truth.
This can cause you to make assumptions, like you have, about what might happen.
Believe Hardhead when he tells you that:
“They want the Church to accept their sins.”
That is precisely what they want. If they wanted sacramental absolution, they’d just walk into a local confessional. DUH!
MIC,
I’m saying the same thing over and over because you and Hardhead still falsely accuse me of endorsing sin, and fail to engage in what I’m actually saying, preferring to set up straw men and argue against points I’ve never made. But now finally we’re getting somewhere.
What happens then? What happens is that the gay people hate the church less and soften their positions, because the church bothered to listen to them and treated them with compassion. Now, if all you do is tell them what they already know, as you seem to propose, you’re right, you are not going to get very far. But if you share the whole truth, I mean the good news as well as the bad news, they understand the church’s position better, and have myths dispelled. They realize that their plan to change the church’s teaching isn’t going to work, which should reduce their motivation to protest. No, they aren’t going to be converted in one session, but a seed will be planted. Their urge to hate will be dampened, and they will become more open to the truth.
Even if they do not budge a bit, however, we’ve fulfilled our obligation (again see Eze 3:18). You can’t argue that because the chances for success are slim, that you are therefore absolved from the responsibility to at least try. We cannot write off sinners we have made no effort to reach.
I think the whole debate boils down to one question: Is it better for a bishop to teach and seek the conversion of individuals as individuals, or is it okay for him to seek their conversions by working through pressure groups that have as their foundation positions that are inimical to the faith? I would say the former rather than the latter.
Eric,
We know what you’re saying. Think about how what you are proposing will work.
You are stuck on your own set of principles. BUT think how it will work out!
If the cardinal sits down with them, and he tells them what the Catholic church actually teaches, what will happen next????
Will they learn or will they pressure for acceptance of their sins as a moral good? Because that’s what they’re doing now.
Sex outside sacramental marriage, which is heterosexual by definition, is a mortal sin.
May I remind you that GROUPS cannot go into the confessional together? Hello.
So what do you suggest michigancatholic? You keep telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are out of touch with reality. (with an extremely condescending tone I might add) So let me put it to you..
If it were up to you, what would you do with the Rainbow Sash Alliance?
I would suggest that the priest:
1) offer to hear the confessions of any who would wish to come immediately after mass and regularize their relationship with the church.
2) bless all those wearing sashes in the Holy Communion line, much as children are blessed, not offering Holy Communion to them as long as they wear the sash.
3) carry on with mass as usual, otherwise, to avoid further scandalizing the regular faithful people who are there for Mass, after all.
If contacted by the press, I would treat it according to 2000 year old Catholic norms. That is, people not in communion with the Church do not recieve Holy Communion but a blessing instead. Period.
This actually is how it is done, if you are not a member of the church. I’m a convert and well aware of this.
The most remarkable thing about homosexual sin is the same remarkable thing all mortal sins do. They put you outside of union with the Church. Period. The only way to fix it and get into union again so you can receive Holy Communion is to go to Confession.
All this discussion right now is simply due to the fact that there is an extraordinary amount of emotion and force involved right now. It’s sin de jour.
Dom,
That is not the debate, as I see it, though perhaps I am wrong. As I have stated, I think that in cases like this, whether Rainbow Sash or whatever, the bishop should approach the members of the group individually, show them love and compassion, listen to them, explain why we cannot compromise on the truth, explain what we do believe and don’t believe (and why!), persuade them we do not hate them, answer their questions and objections, reason with them to the degree possible, and share the Good News with them.
As I see MIC’s approach (I may or may not be correct), it is, tell them homosexual sex is a mortal sin and that they are going to hell (but don’t listen to them), then wait for them to come to confession. I think this is an inadequate and ineffective approach.
In other words, the debate, as I see it, is whether hit-and-run fire-and-brimstone alone will convert sinners, or whether it requires much more effort, time, mercy, understanding, and love.
Hardhead,
You said, Another false analogy [my analogy of Jesus meeting with sinners.]. Scandal is a sin. Causing the faithful to loose faith or weaken their faith due to politicing is not the same as Jesus confounding those hypocrites. Ok, so let’s break this down. Jesus met with sinners. Jesus did not sin. Scandal is sin. Therefore meeting with sinners is not necessarily scandalous.
I am not suggesting anyone politicize. I am suggesting that the Cardinal do his duty and evangelize! This requires talking to sinners.
I am not sure what you are referring to by Jesus “confounding those hypocrites”. It is offensive to me for you to suggest that Jesus’s motivation in meeting with sinners was to confound the hypocrites. In my mind this would be sinful. Jesus met with sinners with one intention, and that was to convert them. Perhaps he confounded the hypocrites as a side effect, but it would certainly be politicizing if Jesus only met with sinners in order to trip up his opponents.
Here’s a question. The Pope meets with notorious sinners all the time. What do you think of that?
You are not correct. You accuse me of things I never said, Eric. Has this discussion come to this? My arguments are no cartoon, as you try to make them out to be. We all know this is a tactic of the left and it doesn’t work anymore, my friend. You’re stuck in the 60s. I am only telling you what the Catholic Church teaches, and if you don’t like it, I can’t help you with that.
Homosexual sin *IS* a mortal sin. It can send you to hell, but it doesn’t have to. All a person has to do is walk into the confessional and confess. Now, if that isn’t meeting with a sinner, I don’t know what is. How many times have I told you that on these pages, huh? Plenty.
You just refuse to hear it because you want your own way. You have your own way and you can explain it to God when you die. You can’t whine to Him and tell Him you weren’t told!
Yes, the Pope meets with notorious sinners. But he doesn’t allow them to show up in menacing gangs at his meetings with them. He would not accept their showing up at a protest in the Holy Communion line (of all places!) to try to FORCE him to change 2000 years of Catholic Church teaching just because they can’t get their perverted jollies okayed.
What few here seem to realize is that no one can change the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. It is part of divine revelation, being in scripture so many times as it is. No amount of lobbying, talking, bartering, even violence will do that. It’s just a fact.
I’m sorry homosexuals have a rough choice to make. I’m sorry that this simply can’t be a way to have a normal family. I really am sorry. I’m sorry all this hurts their feelings so much. But that can’t change the fact that homosexuality is a mortal sin and we know that from scripture and 2000 years of church teaching. It is not an acceptable way to behave for a Christian.
Getting them into a meeting and leading them on, like you seem to think they’d like, would only disappoint them. It would be cruel and a lie. We can’t change the teaching. There is no point in letting them believe we can. There is no point in leading them on.
The more well-meaning fake encouragement we give them, the more upset they will become when they don’t get what they want, because they can’t. It’s just that simple.
Maybe a therapist can help them. You seem to be suggesting maybe they need help making an adjustment to reality in such a way. Maybe some do.
I don’t know how I can make myself more clear. I don’t think you want to hear what anyone else says, anyway.
BTW, don’t send me any more emails.
Confession is essential, but useless if we don’t have the meeting with the sinner that convinces them to go to confession in the first place. It is just as important to meet with sinners to convince them to repent as it is to make the confessional available to them.
Jesus said, “Go, therefore, into all the world and make disciples of all nations.” He did not say “Let the sinners come to confession,” as if we were to remain indifferent about whether they actually did or not. Obeying Christ and loving sinners demands that we take an active role in pursuing them, meeting them where they are and not just waiting for them to find us on their own.
We must have zeal for effectively bringing sinners to the truth, to repentance, and to the Church. We must not write them off before we even make an effort to talk to them.
Agreed, Eric. But we don’t have to lie to them to get them there. That’s my point.
And we don’t have to cave in on what is not negotiable. They have to know that doctrine is never on the table. Period.
I have no problem with simple kindness, but it MUST BE DONE WITHOUT LYING about what CANNOT CHANGE—the Church’s teaching on the unconditional sinfulness of homosexual relations.
If we lie and mislead and incite them to anger over our dishonesty, we compound what is already mortal sin. We do not have the right to do that to them.
Some of our priests have the ability to help them understand the challenging but do-able nature of chastity, which can bring them into communion with the Church. It can bring them lasting happiness, true, but they must be willing to put forth some effort to build a genuine spiritual life and a personal commitment to strict and uncompromising chastity.
It’s not an automatic thing. It’s work. But they will be welcome to join the rest of us working hard to abstain from our sins, for the peace and the joy. That’s the nature of practicing Catholicism.
Jesus ate with individual sinners. He did not eat with the Pharisee party, but called them a “brood of vipers.” I think there’s an analogy here, but I don’t think certain people on this thread will see or admit to it.
Yep, it is a unidimensional view of our Lord. One that has Christ accepting sinners and their sins.
Jaime, *anyone* who tells the Rainbow Sash Alliance that the sexual activities of homosexuals are licit LIES to them. Homosexual acts, in each and every case, are completely ILLICIT.
*Anyone* who tells the Rainbow Sash Alliance that the sexual activities of homosexuals have parity and worth compared to the marital acts of sacramentally married male/female couples LIES to them. Homosexual acts are not equal to the sacramental unitive act.
*Anyone* who tells the Rainbow Sash Alliance that the sexual acts of homosexuals are not condemned in scripture LIES to them. They are condemned in Scripture many times.
*Anyone* who tells the Rainbow Sash Alliance that the sexual acts of homosexuals have not been forbidden by the church, and are still not forbidden, LIES to them. They are forbidden.
*Anyone* who tells them that it is permissible to receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin LIES to them. It is the mortal sin of sacrilege to receive Holy Communion with a mortal sin on one’s soul.
*Anyone* who tells them that it is permissible to *pretend* in all these matters and terrorize the faithful LIES to them. Giving this degree of scandal is also a sin.
ETC ETC ETC.
*Anyone* who leads the Rainbow Sash Alliance to believe that we can “make a deal with them” as a group and allow them some sort of political or social exception to Catholic law, teaching, scripture and theology LIES to them. We cannot. We will not make LIES of all the Church teaches to accommodate their bald-faced THREATS.
Eric, in the post entitled “Imagine if you will…..” from June 5th, you finally said, and I quote by cut and paste:
“Dealing with the Rainbow Sash people as a group is worse than useless.e do want to apologize, but in the classical sense of explaining and defending the faith, not being sorry for it. Third, while it is easy to prove that Jesus met with sinners, you can’t prove he (or the Apostles) didn’t meet with these folks: Just because it isn’t recorded doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Dom,
What do you make of Luke 7:36, “Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table”?
In any case I think Jesus condemned them publically to gain the conversion of those they had oppressed who were listening. The Pharisees were a stumbling-block to the salvation of sinners, because all they did was condemn sinners and brag about their own self-righteousness. Jesus had to shame the Pharisees in order to open the hearts of the oppressed to God. Such is not the case with the Rainbow Sash people. Let’s also not forget that Jesus knew the hearts of the Pharisees.
Now, Dom, if you actually spend time talking with one of these Rainbow Sash people, and find them indeed hard of heart after a good faith effort to reach out to them, and if you truly think it will contribute to the good of souls and is not merely a way of making you feel better, then feel free to call them a brood of vipers. But I don’t think we should judge their hearts (NOTE I said “hearts”, not “actions”) and conclude they are worthy of the condemnation of the Pharisees merely on the basis of reading a news article. (YES, to repeat, what they did and are doing is exceedingly sinful, I am referring to whether they are beyond conversion and worthy only of public condemnation like the Pharisees.)
You missed my point. Yes, Jesus went to the home of the Pharisee, an individual who invited him to dinner. Jesus did not accept the demands of the Pharisee party that he meet with them in a listening session so they could explain to him why he is wrong. Jesus only dealt with individuals, not with hard-hearted, scheming groups.
And I think I can accuse them of Phariseeism because it wasn’t a news article, but their own press release and it was full of heresy and blasphemy. I know we don’t like to use such words in the age of dialogue, but there it is.
Age of dialogue is correct. Too often we confuse wishy washy sentimentality with authentic truth and charity.
These people in the sashes are going to communion. If they are genuinely Catholics, then they know the faith. If they were never catechized, then they should seek out a priest in humility. To bodly dissent and accuse the Church of intolerance is exactly what those who walked away from Christ did. They knew Him, but rejected Him because they chose their will over His. This is the crux of the matter. To gloss over their agenda and hardened ways is disingenuous.
There are many who go to communion knowing the Church is gainst abortion, contraception, homosexual sex, etc. They can easily find out why the teachgings are what they are. That is not the issue. They choose to remain ignorant or reject the reasons because it would mean they must change the way the lead their lives. This is what it is all about.
Eric, you wrote: “MIC, you wrote: a free pass from California’s bishops on being a pro-abortion Catholic? Democrats think so. I’m not so sure. After all, pro-abortion Democrats are getting a free pass from most California bishops, too. Bishop Weigand of Sacramento was the only bishop to tell ex-Gov. Gray Davis that he shouldn’t receive Communion, but none of the others followed suit. And Weigand didn’t take on Davis right away, but only near the end of his time in office.
Still, I would like Schwarzenegger to get some of that criticism as well. He should be told he’s not welcome to receive Communion while he remains pro-abortion. That would only reinforce the point that this isn’t about politics, but about Catholic teaching, scandal to the faithful, and the danger to the politicians’ themselves. The message should be the same for all pro-abortion Catholics, regardless of party affiliation.
]]>
3219
2004-06-09 09:29:02
2004-06-09 13:29:02
open
open
applies_to_both_republicans_and_democrats
publish
0
0
post
Based on my friendly conversations with a homosexual individual who is ‘wired’ to the homosexual ‘rights’ gang, there will be a carefully orchestrated campaign pointing out that the CINO Pubbies are not being addressed. This campaign will simply undermine the credibility of the Bishops.