I think it’s pretty obvious that the liberal, heterodox, post-Conciliar crowd at the USCCB is getting mighty uncomfortable with we “uppity” orthodox Catholics.

They hate the fact that people can find out that they (USCCB, et al) are often corrupt, incompetent, and unfaithful to Church teachings again and again.  They want the Internet to go away so they can control the flow of information.

This is blindingly-obvious, and a point missed from this post.

Too bad.  Truth wins.

First of all, Matthew, let me say that I love your blog.  Now, about the Bishop: As faithful Catholics and followers of the Sacred Scriptures, we are enjoined to discern sinful behavior.  I do hope that the Bishop is not saying that we are not to point out behavior that is wrong in our public figures who say they are “Catholic” etc.  Or, when money is given by the USCCB to organizations that promote homosexuality or abortion. There are some things that are just wrong and one doesn’t need to be “magisterium” to figure it out.  I’d love to know a little more about his whole speech. . .

This is clerical elitism at its worst.

The bishops have been exceedingly-bad stewards of the Church in America.  It’s only when pressure is applied by the blogs (Notre Dame, CCHD, etc.) that these cowards (with a few exceptions) decide to act.

We need stronger, manlier bishops.

Rellis, your comment is ironic to the 10th degree. The last two words are correct, however, but I’m not sure that Truth is quite what you’ve decided it is.  God Bless.

If a blogger quotes the Magisterium and Catholic teaching…they are just the messenger.

Matthew and other others-

I definitely agree with this statement:

“we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful, judgmental language.”

This is oh so true and I’ve seen wonderful well-meaning Catholics and Christians, including myself, engage in silly childlike disputes, which Scripture warns against, which fractures the witness Jesus promised his disciples would show, “by the way, they love one another.”

And even when they disagree. There was a lot of that in the Acts of the Apostles, but now criticism is hard to reconcile, because, we can’t by the nature of the web, and often we’re not “man” and “woman” enough, to give it in person.

As for the second statement:

“We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of Magisterium and judge others in the Church. Such actions shatter the communion of the Church that we hold so precious.”

I would agree with the statement. None of us can fully claim to have all of Scripture and the magisterial teaching digested. We don’t and we weren’t meant to. Thankfully there are different parts of the body. And this is something the bishops are called to do.

Even quoting excerpts of this scripture or that document always falls short. Hence many Christian churches and Catholic groups/blogs that know Scripture back and forth, but come up with entirely different conclusions.

I think its a call to humility and to recognize that the body of Christ is most essentially a family that we need to preserve and work through difficulties together with honesty, forthrightness, and love.

We do well to pray with the Church the opening prayer for daily mass this week:

“God our Father,
we rejoice in the faith that draws us together,
aware that selfishness can drive us apart.
Let your encouragement be our constant strength.
Keep us one in the love that has sealed our lives,
help us to live as one family the Gospel we profess.
Amen.”

can I get an “amen”? :)

My impression is that the Bishop was referring to writers who attack others, not just critique them.  I imagine most of us have encountered blog posts or comments that involve name-calling or belittling others.  I won’t deny that I’m tempted to do that myself when I come across someone who is obstinate in listening to reason.  But when it happens between Catholics, it reflects badly on all of us, especially since we’re called to speak the truth with love.  In that vein, the Bishop makes a valid point.

I think the bishops are right to be concerned. There is one Catholic blog in particular which I avoid like the proverbial plague these days. It is extremely well written, perfectly orthodox, and often quite insightful. But the blogger has a mean streak a mile wide, and his tone and language are often insulting, harsh, judgmental, bullying…just plain mean. If you disagree with his political views, watch out! [shudder] And he’s a very prominent, well known Catholic apologist. Go figure.

Matt—I’ve always loved the title of your blog. It is creative and sends the right message to your readers. We are just Catholics blogging about our faith, our Church, and what we see happening within our Church communities and the Church at large. As Catholics we have a responsibility to discern what is right and/or wrong behavior. Sometimes, however, we make judgments about more than actions—judgments that become direct attacks on people. I think that, perhaps, the Bishop meant that we run the risk of forgetting the call of Christ to love one another and be in union with Him and with our brothers and sisters. We are passionate about our faith, our love for Christ and His Church burns ardently in our hearts and it is an awesome thing to share that in the various forms of new media that we use. But, we should also be mindful that we do not know the hearts of our fellow Catholics (as Matt pointed out) and, no matter what it is we write or say, remember that we are called to reflect the light and love of Christ even when pointing out a person’s misunderstanding or clear disregard of Church teaching. We do the best we can.

Perhaps the challenge the Bishops face is in creating a blog protocol for respectful and meaningful dialogue.

If Bishops engage bloggers who are respectful and mindful of the accepted protocol, they will set a tone and demeanor that proves valuable to all concerned. Readers will naturally gravitate toward the light provided by respectful dialogue.

In other words, the Bishops can, by example, set the tone and by example demonstrate how the faith is best communicated and taught.

If they acknowledge the passionate differences between the more liberal and the more traditional parts of the body of Christ, and create ad hoc forums in which these differences are addressed proactively in a respectful manner, they will have greatly enhanced unity.

One of the best evangelical tools may be a demonstration of how we address differences in a loving manner that brings about reconciliation. We may need to give thought to how we plan and structure on-line “learning conversations” that bring light more than heat.

I am often quite concerned by the lack of charity and fraternal love shown by orthodox bloggers and posters.  Moreover, it is easier to ignore someone who is rude and seems to be frothing at the mouth than someone who outlines orthodox teaching and who offers a reational critique of their interlocutors’ position.

It is also rare to see the magisterium quoted without commentary.  We are responsible for the spirit and manner in which we engage with/correct others and disavowing responsibility by claiming that we are simply the messenger will not do.

I went to LA for a screening on Monday. A dear friend picked me up. I see him about once every three years. He knows I am a professed Franciscan, but doesn’t exactly know what that is. We had a lot of time before the screening. He tentatively began telling me about the abuse heaped upon him for years by his “devout Catholic” mother.

There are far too many people out there who would use God as a weapon of their hatred and bigotries. I’m a very old fashion Catholic. But I refuse to call myself a “traditionalist” because so many “traddies” are just hateful people.

Look at the responses here of folks who wish to justify what they’ve just been rebuked for. Far too many who consider themselves “good Catholics” also find themselves to be “more Catholic than the Pope.” It’s just sad. The number one thing a “good Catholic” should do is honor the magesterium. We may not always agree with them. But we must honor them. Take the example of Padre Pio. Wrongly accused. He did what he was told to do. So many Franciscans these days have been rebuked for bad things and yet decide they do not have to listen.

We need to bring people IN to church, not chase them away.

“We need to bring people IN to church, not chase them away.”

Well said, MaxMarieSFO. =)

Amen to the Bishop!

It’s the very reason I avoid most Catholic blogging, and even ostensibly Catholic traditional media like EWTN or a lot of Catholic Radio (that said I’m a pledging supporter of my local Immaculate Heart Radio affiliate).

The truth is, Catholics today have immediate access to the statements of the Vatican and our Bishops on any issue, from sexuality to medical ethics to social concerns to election politics, and we don’t need an intermediary voice to make sense of it for us.

The value of Catholic blogging drops significantly when it moves beyond a place where individual laypeople can share questions and official Church resources that answer them. When it becomes an kind of Catholic Fox News or Daily Show, delivering the opinionated INTERPRETATIONS of Church teaching of bloggers with charisma, then the Bishop is 100% correct.

Just in case it’s not clear, Agent99 and Joe D’Hippolito are gossiping about me in that weird way Christians do when they want to be catty but appear pious at the same time.  Agent99’s remarks are run of the mill cattiness.  But only Joe has the demented genius to jump from saying he doesn’t like what I put on my blog to cries of “totalitarianism”.

Dude and dudette: it’s the internet.  I can write what I please so long as it doesn’t violate the laws of God and man.  If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

Totalitarian.  Feh!

Personally, I think the role of the Catholic blogger apologist should be to help point the way to the Church teaching.  Once we elevate ourselves to judges of the Magisterium instead of being in service to the Magisterium, we become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

I applaud the bishops comments.

Unfortunately due to a lack of any semblance of leadership for the past 40 years from our own bishops, his words ring hollow.

Especially when his own archbishop then demonizes the entire state of Arizona by referring to them as Nazi’s and Commie’s.

It should be said though that the bishops words are a good first step.  We as the Catholic New Media need to organize and put together a set of rules to live by to respond positively to this good bishop.

Bishop Zavala said it correctly, we need to behave more Catholic and less worldly.

Even the Lord can see that the Nancy Pelosi’s are causing Chaos and scandulous among the catholics….And we can’t demand that the Bishops, and priest follow and lead the sheep towards perfection….instead of allowing her to entertain and create confusion among the faithful…or that some of the priests and bishops are supporting funding of abortions or that the Americans are not interested in social justice ($)funding from our pockets when they can barely support their families….just some hard thoughts…..

“Chris, people are going to have opinions on Church teaching, bishops’ statements, reactions to current events, etc. What do you suggest they do, say nothing?”

No, just that we flip the order of our preferred authority, looking FIRST to the official resources we have from the Church addressing the issue and our questions AND THEN to the blogosphere. I don’t go to Wikipedia to diagnose an illness or to learn a new skill.

Next, that we be patient and pray.

“Since the Church has no effective means to redress legitimate grievances, what you suggest as an alternative?”

Christ himself advises what to do, in His parable about the widow and the unjust judge.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke18.htm

So far from calling for “pay, pray and obey Catholics,” I am calling for uppity, in-you-face ones who dare to speak truth to power when the Holy Spirit finally demands it.

I just think we all need to be honest that the blogosphere is not a way to do that. I am calling for more more San Juan Diegos (the parable model of airing grievances) and fewer Martin Luthers (the blogosphere model).

Pete: AMEN!

I would think the Bishops would start addressing all the anti Catholic bias in the media such as the Hyundai World Cup commercial. What I think is going on here really is that some liberal Bishops are tired of Orthodox, conservative Catholics speaking their mind. They’ve yet to realize that Vat II and all it’s damage done to the Church is just about over and with it all it’s guitar strumming heretical music too. Deo Gratias!

“Do you seriously believe that change would have come without the massive legal settlements that transpired?”

To be perfectly blunt:  YES!!

Sex abuse scandals have highlighted many things in people.  One of the most ugly has been a genuine contempt for the Church’s teachings and an arrogant rejection of Christ’s example of passionate prayer.
If these people are so determined to see good done, why aren’t they organizing prayer crusades for the salvation of their oppressors?

As for the bishop’s concerns, it would be VERY helpful if he’d be a bit more specific regarding what he considers to be “hurtful language” or “attacks”.  These concepts could mean almost anything.

Some of the comments here are proof of what the Bishop is saying. Slander, detraction, rash judgement are sins against charity.

“To criticize, to destroy, is not difficult; the clumsiest laborer knows how to drive his pick into the noble and finely-hewn stone of a cathedral.

To construct—- that is what requires the skill of a master.”

St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way

Pray for the Bishops and priests.

The main thing I get out of this article is lack of hope that anything’s gonna change in LA when Mahony retires.

Tone is in the eye of the beholder.  I’ve been told—at times regarding the same blog post or comment I’ve written—that I’m either a) a mean-spirited, name-calling, judgemental fringe nutcase (usually by other Catholics), or b) one of the most articulate and logical writers in the Catholic blogosphere (and, if any claim has the more credence, I’ve been told the latter by non-Catholics).

It’s easy to condemn “sins against civility,” but will Bishop Zavala stand up and condemn contraception and IVF in no uncertain terms?

If it is wrong to condemn the sins of public figures, then is John the Baptist in Hell? 
If “name calling” is a sin, then what about Jesus (He called His own Apostles a “wicked and perverse generation”!), John the Baptist (“you brood of vipers!”), and most of the prophets and many saints?

Why are people so quick to say these things of Catholic Answers, EWTN, the conservative blogosphere, and this publication, but yet they don’t point out the absolute venom in _US Catholic_, _America_, _Commonweal_, or _National Catholic Reporter_?  Indeed, those publications are always pointed to as icons of Catholic journalism and a “balanced” approach, even though they frequently contain attacks on our Holy Father and on basic Catholic theological, moral and liturgical princples.  Of course, you know who *has* criticized those publications on many occasions?  The Vatican—but I guess the CDF and the CDW are just “Judgemental” and “mean-spirited.”

I’m not convinced that you can call most these comments “slanderous” or whatever.  We’re definitely having a vigorous debate about the virtue—or lack thereof—of modern media and how we’re using it.

Problem is, like I mentioned before, His Excellency’s comments are entirely too vague to be very useful.  What are people saying that he considers to be hurtful, unacceptable, whatever?

One serious problem we’ve seen has been a stubborn insistence that if you’re at all passionate or insistent about living an orthodox Catholic life, you’re criticized heavily for challenging the status quo.

Honestly, if the bishops are that concerned about modern media, perhaps they’d do well to keep in touch with some prominent bloggers or other media innovators?  Rather than criticizing people for being passionate, how about using their media efforts as a means to get the word out?  We don’t have to rely solely on diocesan newspapers or official media to preach the Good News.  Vatican II even implied we ought to use modern social media to our advantage….

I agree with you, John. The bishop’s comments are indeed too vague to be very useful. That was likely intentional on his part—he’s not going to call out bloggers by name—yet I can’t help but think (I hope I’m wrong) that he’s referring to orthodox Catholics who, in most cases, have legitimate complaints, even if they sometimes don’t voice them in the best manner. Yes, we should always strive to exercise charity and prudence; but there are times when it’s appropriate to say “The emperor has no clothes!” even if the emperor doesn’t want to hear it.

http://joeahargrave.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/will-the-l-a-bishops-take-their-own-advice/

I found this post on the internet yesterday and i believe it would be one that would raise the level of uncomfort.  Please give it a view and let me know what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ0BmNECiT0&playnext_from=TL&videos=xvFsr3u_lXw&feature=sub

Elizabeth, you talk about “some of the comments here” but just take a look around at the Church today. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear you can see what a COMPLETE mess it is. Lets take for example the directive by the Vatican that a crucifix must be placed on the alter so that people understand they aren’t worshiping the priest. In my diocese here in Florida the directive has been completely ignored. Or how about the 10 year long foot drag by the American Bishops to revise the English mass to a CORRECT translation. The only reason the Bishops finally completed it by the way is because they were told by the Vatican that the time was up and they would be FORCED to change it. Or, how about taking Catholic contributions to the collection plate and using them for USCCB to give to organizations that promote abortion and homosexuality!! We have rights as Catholics and we’re FED UP with the liberal BS in the Church. We’re NOT becoming Luthers, at least not the people I know or read. Mostly, the bloggers are merely shining light on on abuses which before the internet were all too able to go on unchecked. Mother Angelica said “if you’re not a thorn in someone’s side (in the Church) you’re not doing something right. She was in Mahoney’s and thank God for her. I will follow her advice to the letter.

What I especially dislike are those bloggers who get a bee in their bonnets and organize pressure campaigns—at a distance—against a particular priest, parish, or mission, because they disagree with something controversial that is being undertaken that was posted somewhere else on the Internet.

I believe this is part of the Magisterium:
“They [the laity] are, by [reason of] knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church.” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 37)

Why do they never mention blogs by name when they are “hurt” by their comments.

I rarely see mean and critical blogs.  But maybe their are some.  But the victims cast aspersions on all blogs by not naming names.

But Church attendance has fallen from 85% to 30% on Sundays in this country.  If our bishops won’t bring that up, are we to interpret that as their tacit approval?

The Pope is starting to criticize his bishops and he should keep it up.  Some of them deserve to be criticized (let the guilty ones feel “hurt” at that).

I agree with Rellis’s point, so I’d like to post it again:

“I think it’s pretty obvious that the liberal, heterodox, post-Conciliar crowd at the USCCB is getting mighty uncomfortable with we “uppity” orthodox Catholics.

They hate the fact that people can find out that they (USCCB, et al) are often corrupt, incompetent, and unfaithful to Church teachings again and again.  They want the Internet to go away so they can control the flow of information.

This is blindingly-obvious, and a point missed from this post.

Too bad.  Truth wins”

I will say that I have never read a blog here at the Register or on other faithful magazine sites that would be heterodox or mean-spirited.

However, I have read some of the writings from the Jesuit culture editor from America magazine, and it makes my toes curl how he sounds more of a man of his age than a man of the church.

Blog on Register writers, you rock!

This dialogue proves one thing - the Church is full of flawed humans being led by flawed humans.  I never expect perfection as I cannot give it.  Do I wish some bishops and priests who do a ‘better job’ (whatever that may be?), sure.  But I am also sure God in heaven is wishing the same thing for me.

What I find all too often is a lack of positive intent.  Having been attacked in combox discussions for holding a different pov than another poster, I wondered at the absence of charity in many of these discussions.  We are called to love and to acknowledge the dignity of the other person.

Unfortunately, there are some hot button topics on which the majority of American Catholics disagree with the bishops and papal documents.  The blogosphere is one place where it seems acceptable to put out that particular view, leaving some to believe they are quite at liberty to form their own opinion without seriously considering what our Mother Church has to say.

Folks, this has nothing to do with charity, love, piety or whatever Christian virtues you care to name. It’s a lot simpler than that. Leftists don’t like to be challenged and get highly annoyed when they are challenged, which happens often on these conservative blogs. If you go to a liberal site and present orthodox views, you will be quickly denounced as “hateful” or “judgmental.” It’s just a default debating tactic. The bishops are mostly liberals and don’t like to be shown up as such, hence these kinds of reactions.

Don’t be spooked—continue to defend your faith, fairly but firmly.

I wonder what position the Bishop and those who feel “judged” by the Church hold on…

* Pro Abortion politicians ?

* Same sex marriage ?

* Contraception ?

* Priestly ordination of women ?

Often those who dissent on Church teachings of these issues are aware of the change that is required in their lifestyles and that gets their back up. Yet, when we say, “Amen” upon receiving the Eucharist we effectively say, “I agree with ALL that the Church teaches!” If you do not agree, you can’t vote the leaders out. You could however be true to your beliefs and your amen/agreement and join one of the 35,000+ protestant denominations.

There is enough public scandal in the Church today. Perhaps those who stand up to heresies and lack of charity to their Church’s teachings are like the saints of old who were misunderstood and often hated in their day?

I agree, Phil. I don’t think anyone who echos the magisterium is going to “take the place” of the teaching authority of the Church.

AND, if magisterial teaching on contraception, homosexual acts, and the rest of the natural law was heard more from our priests and bishops, it wouldn’t be so tough on other ears.  I applaud those priests who do teach on these things, and I pray for those who shy away from these issue.

My understanding is that the bishops, with the Pope, form that Magisterium to teach on matters of faith and morals.  When they speak on matters that are strictly faith and morals, we must listen to them (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.)  The bishops, however, seem to speak on just about every facet of our lives.  They have the advantage of perceived Catholic authority when they speak on issues that are not “faith and morals”.  This gives the impression that their views are the absolute teachings of the Catholic Church on political or economic issues (healthcare, “living wage”, immigration, etc.)  Nothing could be further from the truth.

These issues might touch on some of the “absolutes” of the Catholic Church, such as the issue of abortion in the healthcare debate, but the Church does not teach that the government should run and control healthcare.  To disagree, charitably, with the bishops’ views on political or economic issues, is allowable and necessary.  In my view, when a bishop speaks on economic issues, he is speaking as a private citizen.  The frustrating thing for me is that his views (those not specifically on faith and morals) are widely disseminated and give the impression that they are Church teaching.  As laypersons, we have a difficult time getting our views into public circulation.

I will summarize by saying that our tone should always be charitable, but our voices should not be silenced.  We have as much right to speak out as Catholics on political and economic issues as long as our views do not run contrary to Catholic teaching on issues of faith and morals.

I understand that the bishops are getting a little uncomfortable.  I don’t know about you, but I believe that the Lord must be saddened by the closing of parishes.  Why don’t these bishops get busy evangelizing instead?  Many of them are not doing a good job.

I would imagine that the do not like the Vortex.  Check out this episode: http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/1/IZ0BmNECiT0

I think you are spot-on, Allison.

And, I daresay that a post like yours (and a ton of mine) could be one that erroneously think is being judgemental.

I would like to know what the bishop’s leanings are on these issues (sad that we have to even wonder about that!). 

He could be very well talking about some blogs which promote dissident teachings. However, my hunch is he’s not referring to these types, as they wouldn’t really be trying to replace the magisterium.

One more good thing coming from the Information Age is that dissidents are outed and the TRUTH is being spread further and faster. Hopefully, people will HEAR the truth and listen to it rather than the competing messages.

Dear Bishops:

Start doing your job rightly and you wont have to hear the faithful doing yours for you!

Growing very tired of the “lukewarm” Bishops as individuals or as part of the USCCB. Thanks for the National Abortion Bill, guys. If you came out swinging at Sr. Keenan, the bill would not have past.

Lukewarm!!

It’s frustrating when the local bishop does something that seems scandalously opposed to the magesterium but doesn’t explain his perspective/position after much public pleading - so we’re left thinking we have to fight this for our Church and our on-looking teens.  Wuerl and giving communion to pro-abortion leaders who are politicians comes to mind.

Liberals are thin skin, regardless of the clothing they wear or the position they hold in life.  They like to dish it out but they can’t take it.  Let’s face it; the majority of U.S. bishops are in the thin skin camp, a camp intentionally built by “the undisputed moderate leader of the American Church” which was so openly written about in his biography, simply titled - Cardinal Bernardin, with the subheading, “Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism,” written by his life long friend, Eugene Kennedy.

Bishop Zavala should read it, especially Chapter XVIII.  He’d discover that the beloved Cardinal had no problem destroying the prolife movement, and the millions of babies’ lives as a result of it, as long as he could keep “the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.”  Thus he did that by getting the NCCB, now called the USCCB, to go along with his adding so called “social justice” issues to the definition of prolife.

He succeeded, and it resulted in over half the Catholics, laity and clergy alike, including the bishops, remaining in and supporting the pro-abortion part, disregarding their profession of faith every Sunday.  Catholics are the largest, single voting block the pro-abortion party has.  He also succeeded in influencing the elevation of men of his ilk to bishoprics   And the rest of us Catholics should just accept this without strong criticism of their actions?

Respect? Charity? Should we ask the 50 million dead babies? Or, how about the souls of the, perhaps, 50 millions of fallen away Catholics? All else is pretty much a turf war.

Truth is, the bishops could have stopped it, the Church had that much power in the 1960’s. Before they squandered their authority. The Church is in collapse everywhere except parts of Africa and Asia.

Bishops have all but destroyed the real Church in America, now they want the hide of America the Republic. You can never compromise with or be nice to liberals. Like all addicts you must not enable them but exercise tough love.

Yes, pray for them by all means, for their souls - and our own, “For the sake of Your sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!”

Jonah

The backbiting is not confined to heterodoxy vs. orthodoxy. IT IS SOUND DEVOUT CATHOLIC VS. SAME over things like the MEF and the Novus Ordo or Catholic school vs home school or whether or not Medugorje is authentic. Whether or not they should have one more baby etc. or how to judge motives when using NFP, or whether or not your kids should eat cheerios at Mass. Ave Maria university and the sale of land to Jackson labs or how best to decapitate the Legionaries of Christ. Pick one- this is where the hateful nasty judgemental stuff that dishonors us, our temporary leadership, and Jesus Christ is swirlling around in bloggerland. And it goes on in the comments often right here on NCR, usually under anonymous tags. 
AND for the record I have read libel on personal Catholic blogs, and called attention to it. We need some sound catechesis on how to behave behind the keyboard, myself included.

Catehesis on calumny and detraction:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Commandments/Commandments_004.htm

Bishops Very Troubled by Some Catholic Blogs

Catholics Very Troubled By Some Bishops.  Their Excellencies Lynch, Trautman, Kicanas, Gumbleton, et al, leading the procession.

It’s clear. The Bishops and their bureaucrats are uncomfortable. They see lay people demanding and requesting orthodoxy, consistency in teaching the WHOLE truth. 

It’s sad that we must look to lay Catholics for apologetics, firming up of the soul and for courage.

In response to a great many comments posted here, I think St. Paul said it best in 1 Corinthians 13:1-4.

Admonish the sinner, yes.  But without charity, as hard as it may be, only perverts the work of Christ.

It’s sad that we must look to lay Catholics for apologetics, firming up of the soul and for courage.

As somebody who frequently gets pegged as a “Catholic apologist”, permit me to take this opportunity to say that I think anybody who elevates a lay Catholic apologist above a bishop as a teacher of the Faith is simply not practicing the Catholic faith in any sense that the Church has ever understood it but is instead indulging in an all too contemporary American cult of fanboyism and celebrity worship.  And I think any Catholic apologist worth his salt would agree with me and would have *grave* doubts about any Catholic apologist who cultivated such rubbish.  Catholic apologists are not bishops.  There is no office of “apologist” in the Church.  People who do such work have absolutely no standing in the Church as authorities that laypeople can (or should) appeal to in order to trump Bp. Whosit or the magisterial teaching of the Church.  I shake the dust off my feet from any such talk and urge all serious Catholics to abjure it.  Brrr…. Yeccchhhh!

Re: Mark. P Shea, perhaps you can help me with the answer.  I have been writing the bishops, all them, asking where in the Bible does Jesus direct His disciples and followers to get governments to do the works he taught them to do themselves.  Not one who has answered me addressed my question or referred me to a book, chapter and verse.  I can’t find it anywhere.  Do you know where I can find the answer to my question in the Bible?

I understand the Church’s teaching on abortion and support that completely because it is our belief that life is given to us by God.  Church-going Catholics profess, out loud, voluntarily to believe that, standing, every Sunday after the Gospel and Homily; i.e., “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life…”  We also pray standing before the Holy Eucharist the Lord’s Prayer, the only prayer Jesus ever gave us so we would know how to talk to the Father, in which we pray for His “will be done on earth and lead us not in to temptation, but deliver us from evil.”  Do Catholics believe that God creates life to be aborted?  Our belief in the right to life is a spiritual one that is also supported in the secular world as evidenced in the Declaration of Independence and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside…and no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any state deprive any person of life…without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  Cows are born in the U.S.  Are they citizens?  No, because they are not persons.  One must be a person FIRST who, when born in the US, is a citizen having all the rights assigned to them by the Constitution.  So, our Church not only has a spiritual rational to be opposed to Roe v Wade and abortion-on-demand, we have secular grounds to support a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment, as well.  Such is the issue of abortion that we can discuss openly within our worship services and take actions that need to be taken to correct the error made by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade It is a spiritual matter for each and every one of us who recite our Profession of Faith, and pray the Lord’s Prayer to do whatever we can, legally to reinstate the Constitutional Right to Life in the supreme Law of the land.  That is not a political exercise, it is a spiritual one that our Church can talk about openly, any where, any time.

The same CAN NOT be said of the so-called “social justice” issues the bishops want the laity to support.  These are political issues that neither have right or wrong, good or evil associated with them when it comes to political candidates, parties or legislation.  These issues merely have various competing political ways of bringing about a desired result, all of which concern helping people in need – something Jesus directed his followers to do themselves.  As far as I can tell, He never directed His followers to get governments to do them.  Can you be of any help pointing to where Jesus did teach that He came into the world to get us to get governments to do these works?

Thank you “still believe”.  I agree with your comments, especially about
“social justice”.

Stillbelieve:

I’m sorry, but the reality is that you are not writing the bishops to find anything out, but to keep from finding anything out.  You are writing the bishops to satisfy yourself that your libertarian theory of government would be approved by Jesus as The Correct Theory of Government.  If you want to understand the Church’s social teaching, the resources are there, beginning with the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.  Your method of demanding proof texts is of a piece with the sort of people who (ironically) demand to know where Jesus ever condemned abortion or gay marriage. Ah Ha!  They shout!  He didn’t!  So I can ignore the bishops! This is simply not how serious Catholic theology is done.  If you are really serious about this question, stop asking the bishops “gotcha” questions designed to re-confirm you in your prejudices and make a serious study of Catholic social teaching.

Mr. Shea:
May I suggest sir, that you’re revealing a fair degree of prejudice yourself with this last comment?
Precisely because I’ve been shocked by many Catholics’ presumptions, I’ve intentionally reviewed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible, and definitely the comments of His Holiness, John Paul II.  I think many incorrectly understand the Church’s actual teaching on this matter.

Near as I can tell, no legitimate resource REQUIRES that government MUST be the only answer, nor that government efforts are the best answer.  There’s a mandate to be compassionate to the impoverished, but this doesn’t declare how this must be done.
Knowing that, I believe that the concept of government-sponsored efforts as the best or only way is merely an interpretation.  One we’re quite free to disagree with and oppose.

I don’t know Stillbelieve’s precise intentions with letters to bishops.  I can speculate though, that such letters intend to challenge Their Excellencies to teach us the Truth of the Church’s teaching.  They’re welcome to propose the solutions they deem wisest, but I don’t believe we’re required to agree with their conclusions regarding means.

Put more frankly, Stillbelieve’s comments may be aimed at reminding Their Excellencies that many of us are grown adults.  We’re VERY weary of this attitude that we’re a mob of 2-year-olds who still need mommy and daddy to tie our shoes.

I think John has a point here.

There is nothing in Church teaching that says government MUST take a role in this.

What the bishops proscribe goes against the principle of subsidiarity.

As a boy my father always told me that respect is earned. The USCCB has squandered their respect.  It’s about time they feel the heat…..belief in the real presence is less than 30%, mass attendances is around 25% of people who call themselves Catholic, Catholics are divorcing at the same rate as non-Catholics, Catholics totally disregard the Church’s teaching on contraception…....40% or so of Catholics think abortion is OK….Catholic politicians publically promote abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, divorce, public funding of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and the bishops do nothing, Catholics no longer go to confession, vocations are in the sewer and Catholic nuns know more about playing the bongo drums than their faith.

All this stuff happened on their watch and they whine about respect.  Oh my gosh….when they start teaching and upholding the teachings of the Church, I’ll start respecting them.

Mike Malone

Tito and John:

Some guy in a combox writes one of those silly proof text “questions” to the bishops demanding a Bible verse—“where in the Bible does Jesus direct His disciples and followers to get governments to do the works he taught them to do themselves”—and you take that *seriously*.  Do you take it seriously when some fundy demands “where in the Bible does Jesus use the word ‘transubstantiation’ or ‘purgatory’?”  Do you take such gotcha questions seriously when some pro abort demands “where in the Bible does Jesus direct His disciples and followers to get governments to prohibit abortion?”

I repeat: such folly is not a serious way of trying to engage Catholic teaching.  The Church’s cogitation about the responsibility of the state with regard to providing for the common good is not going to come down to simplistic Bible proof texting.  It’s also not going to be settled by a few libertarians in combox casually declaring the duly appointed magisterial teaching of the Church incompetent to teach.

It is indeed quite obvious that the Bishops know they have dropped the ball.  From defending sexual abuse to the D & P scandal they have failed miserably, and now they are resorting to knee jerk defence. 

The rot in the church is being exposed and all the Judas’s that exist must be expelled. But the dear anointed Bishops cannot see this, as the plank in their eye is so huge.

Thank God for the “Reformation”.

CCHD gave ACORN $7 million Catholic dollars. Did anyone here happen to see the videos where Acorn officials were giving advice on how to set up a prostitution ring? HELLO!? Anyone out there think this would have come to light without the bloggers? God Bless all the conservative/orthodox bloggers out there and keep the HEAT on.

Mark S.,

I am with you brother.

I only agree with the point that John made that the only option is not ALWAYS government intervention.

There is an allowance to government intervention.  To what degree and depth.

It is an option that we give attention to from time to time.

What I don’t agree with is that ONLY the government can solve problems.  So John makes a valid point that nowhere does Church teaching, Tradition, Scriptural, nor the Magisterium say that we MUST ONLY use government.

What I don’t agree with is the distraction from Mr. Warners subject, ie, we need to listen to Bishop Zavala’s request for civility.

I also don’t agree with the attacks on you Mark.

This is not the forum for it.  Furthermore, I don’t agree with the points nor the tone that those have aggressively attacked you in.

Yes the bishops have dropped the ball.

But not ALL bishops.

Yes the USCCB is corrupt and has lost most credibility.

But not ALL who work in the USCCB are corrupt.

I’m all for social justice.

I’m all for volunteer work, donations to Catholic apostolates that strive for social justice.

I’m against the government that takes away this role and furthermore becomes less efficient, wasteful, and corrupt in trying to fulfill the roles that charitable organizations such as Catholic apostolates achieve.

To finish my rambling thoughts, I want to reiterate that I completely disagree with the attacks against Mark.

I understand the feelings of frustration and anger, but this isn’t the time nor place for this.

I’m done.

:)

Tito

I am with you brother.

I only agree with the point that John made that the only option is not ALWAYS government intervention.

Agreed.  I’m no fan of Governmental giganticism.  My beef was with SB’s simplistic approach (and with the implicit and not so implicit contempt for the Magisterium that this becoming more strident in this thread).  I appreciate you taking a stand against that.

As to attack on me personally, I appreciate your kind words, but they aren’t important, because I’m not important.  What is important is that the Magisterium does not cease to articulate the teaching of the Church simply because somebody dislikes a bishop (and believe me, there are a couple of bishops I dislike) or simply because it’s inconvenient to some economic or political theory that is near and dear to us.  I’m not making the case for big government.  I’m making the case that simple-minded biblical proof texting is not a serious way to try to get at Catholic social teaching.  It’s an even more unseriously way of trying to dispense with it.

Thanks for being a good egg, Tito!

Mr. Shea:
I must say, this comment isn’t easy to write.  Your last response was..provocative..to say the least!

I think I’ll ignore the jab about simplistic proof-texting for the most part.  I don’t honestly think you know for sure what anyone is now or was then thinking.

As for my objection to the State, I notice that even your comment doesn’t mandate that the State alone has the sole authority in providing for the common good.  We, the faithful are still left to discern the most appropriate means.

Tito:
Again, if Bishop Zavala believes us uncivil, what does he mean?  Does he mean that he doesn’t care for a rigorous debate on controversial subjects?  Does he mean that he’s seeing too much emotion and not enough objectivity?  Does he mean that he doesn’t like noisy, obnoxious Americans who’re accustomed to a democratic process?

His comments don’t offer many useful criteria to measure improvement….

I don’t honestly think you know for sure what anyone is now or was then thinking.

That quite true.  But then, I never claimed to know what anyone was thinking.  So instead, I responded to what they wrote.  And what SB wrote was this: “I have been writing the bishops, all them, asking where in the Bible does Jesus direct His disciples and followers to get governments to do the works he taught them to do themselves.”

My point was that this is a simplistic proof-texting question.  For starters, It relies on equivocation.  Does it mean that the state has no obligation to ever do anything an individual can do?  Okay, I can handle a gun. So can a lot of Americans. Should the state therefore never have an army and simply expect a mob of libertarians to form a private militia to defend us?  Jesus, after all, did say that Peter could weild a sword.

Does the reader mean that since Jesus bade his followers to feed the hungry and care for the sick the state should simply abandon all concern for the common good?  It would appear that’s what he’s driving at.  He seems to be trying to offer a sola scriptura defense of libertarianism and upset because the Catholic Church does not believe in sola scriptura.

Does the reader mean that since Jesus lived in a non-democratic culture we should not try to influence the state?  (I highly doubt this.)  But that the problem with biblical proof-texting.  You can wind up “proving” things you never set out to prove.  And you wind up overlooking things you never thought about because it turns out the Bible is not the Big Book of Everything with answers explicitly recorded for all your economic and political questions.

Finally, the reader didn’t ask if “the State alone has the sole authority in providing for the common good.”  He asked if the State ever had any business in providing for the common good when individuals could do it.  I think that’s a nonsense question more reflective of libertarian dogmatism than common sense or Catholic teaching. The Church has a long history of working with state actors for the common good.  It also has a long history of working with private parties.  Either/or thinking tends to be Protestant.  Both/and thinking tends to be Catholic.

“And what SB wrote was this: “I have been writing the bishops, all them, asking where in the Bible does Jesus direct His disciples and followers to get governments to do the works he taught them to do themselves.”

My point was that this is a simplistic proof-texting question.  For starters, It relies on equivocation.”

I cannot agree.
Did SB declare this to be the exact text of what the bishops received?  Or might this be more a summary of the question presented?
In this sense, I can agree with Bishop Zavala:  Sometimes, Catholics will assume too much regarding someone’s intentions.  Honest questions, especially those that’re poorly phrased or not fully explained, can be incorrectly perceived as provocation.  Sure, it’s possible that SB intended to provoke.  But we don’t know that.  Even if the question WAS angry and provocative, couldn’t the bishops take the hint and provide for more effective catechesis?

Give you an example:  When EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo did a piece with Bishop Bruskewitz about the Traditional Mass a few years ago, the comments they made about ad orientem vs ad versus (correct term(?)) didn’t entirely make sense to me.  When I wrote to them, I asked about how the priest could be facing “to the east” if facing his altar means facing north, south, or west on the compass.  I never heard back, so I’d bet they thought I was a modernist crank, trying to get attention, or whatever.  I wasn’t.

I would suggest then that if the bishops wish to improve the civility of the ‘net or of life, they might do well, as someone else suggested, to agree upon and disseminate some useful guidelines about objectivity, research, and/or other appropriate conduct.

It’s precisely because the bishops themselves tend toward being so durn equivocal about everything, people are struggling to make sense of what they should believe or do.

Did SB declare this to be the exact text of what the bishops received?  Or might this be more a summary of the question presented?

You’re not making sense.  Before you were complaining that I was reading his mind.  Now you are complaining that I’m reading the question that he put to me.  It’s not my responsibility to guess what his words to somebody else might have been.  It was my job to read the question he put to me.

Even if the question WAS angry and provocative, couldn’t the bishops take the hint and provide for more effective catechesis?

They have.  It’s called the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  If somebody can’t be bothered to read it and instead prefers to ask “gotcha” questions which they imagine to torpedo the Church’s teaching on state responsibility for the common good, that’s not the bishops’ problem.

Mr. Shea:
I can see why others don’t care much for your approach sometimes.  You remind me quite a lot of people I knew at a Newman Club in Lincoln, NE:  Very likely you know the faith well, but you come across with a rather chilly, even slightly suspicious, demeanor.
It’s quite possible that SB intends to “torpedo” the faith.  But I don’t think we know that.  What’s the harm in trying?

You remind me that the bishops have provided catechesis through the Compendium.  Great.  Except it’s a pretty big book, as is the Catechism.  Would you care to provide any appropriate citations?

It’s not my intention to chilly or suspicious.  I’m simply trying to answer the question.  The reader (and now you) wanted to know why the bishops weren’t taking time out of their day to answer a question that was poorly framed and reads more like an accusation than a request for information.  I explained why this was likely the case and even provided information on where to turn on the chance the guy was not writing to accuse but to actually get an answer.  For my troubles, I get not “thanks for the tip” but a bunch of grief, which is, once again, probably related to why bishops don’t take time out of their day to answer such questions.

I’m not an expert in Catholic social doctrine, which is why I have not attempted an indepth analysis of the Church’s understanding of the role of the state in providing for the common, or the relationship of solidarity and subsidiarity in the Church’s teaching.  Because I’m not an expert, I referred the reader who was asking for my input to the Compendium, because it is written by experts and is also written precisely for people who really want to understand the Church’s teaching in all its richness.

Again, sorry for not being able to convey the right tone of voice in ASCII.

Re: Mark Shea.  Thanks for your quick response.  I am sorry, too, that my note to you was not written clear enough for you to understand it as I intended.  You are incorrect in your analysis of my intent on writing the bishops.  First, did you read my comment on this article about Bishop Salava posted shortly before my posted request to you?  If not, please do.  It deals with the bishops politicizing the Catholic prolife spiritual issue of abortion, which is the intentional murder of a baby yet to be born completely, by expanding the definition of prolife to include political issues that have nothing to do with evil and sin.  Why in the world would Cardinal Bernardin be so motivated to “keep the prolife movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors” in the early ‘80s?  Seems to me the bishops should have wanted to support the work of those who were succeeding in laying the ground work to restore the right to life to the unborn.  Who cared what political persuasion that support may have been coming from and how did he did he “know” it was coming only from the “right wing conservatives?”  And why did the bishops piggyback “quality of life” issues that had only been around 90 years or so on the back of a word that was coined a few years after Roe v Wade to address a life and death issue the Church had been consistent on since her founding formation?

No, Mark, my intent was to encourage the bishops to realize the right to life issue was far more important to each and every Catholic, including the bishops, clergy and religious, themselves, than any so called “social justice” issue because each and every Catholic who attends Sunday obligation Mass vocalizes their belief in God as the giver of life when they stand to recite their Profession of Faith, and prays for God’s will to be done on earth in the Lord’s Prayer standing in front of the Holy Eucharist.  Either Catholics really believe the professed beliefs we stand to vocalize, which are the minimum articles of belief one must hold to be a Christian, or we don’t.  And if we don’t - than we are kidding ourselves that we are Christians no matter what “good works” we do.  And if we do believe what we profess to believe, but give our name identification and support to a worldly organization that is diabolically opposed to what we profess to believe, then we are co-enablers to that organization’s stated purpose to defend abortion-on-demand remaining the law of the land.  In either case, it seems to me, the Church leadership is failing in their ordained mission.  My urging to them was to do what St. Augustine said to do once and that was to ask each Catholic to hold up the Creed as a mirror and to look at themselves in it to see if they really believe what they profess to believe.

I can find a lot of evidence in the Bible for our Profession of Faith, and how to pray to God the Father, and for that matter, our Sacraments.  It was only as an aside I asked the bishops to show me where in the Bible we are directed to get governments to do what Jesus directed his followers to do.  It seemed to me there was a hugely important spiritual difference between the term “prolife” as originally coined and its diluted meaning after the bishops expanded it to include the so-called “social justice” issues.  I hope this clarifies my intent a bit more.  I welcome your response.

opps.  Bishop Savala, not Salava.

Mr. Shea:
I must admit I’m quite saddened by your responses.  And angered.

We all understand that bishops are busy folks.  We are, why wouldn’t they be?  I think there’s a serious problem with priorities. 
Should a bishop be a political operative?  Should he work with political leaders behind closed doors?  Should he enact his own interpretation of the faith?  Or should he teach his flock what the Church’s teaching truly declares—with a Compendium, the Catechism, from the pulpit, and every other way?  Should he teach his flock what the faith teaches, then allow the faithful to enact laws based on well-formed consciences?

As Stillbelieve hinted (or stated), we’ve seen much more of the former than the latter.  Small wonder that bishops would receive “nastygrams” from their flock.  Even if phrased poorly, we still have a right to challenge our leadership when they don’t do their job, nor allow us to do ours.

Tito:
Again, if Bishop Zavala believes us uncivil, what does he mean?  Does he mean that he doesn’t care for a rigorous debate on controversial subjects?  Does he mean that he’s seeing too much emotion and not enough objectivity?  Does he mean that he doesn’t like noisy, obnoxious Americans who’re accustomed to a democratic process?

His comments don’t offer many useful criteria to measure improvement….

John,

On this point I also agree with you.

Bishop Zavala was very vague and it could be interpreted in many ways.

So in that respect the good bishop did not address the issue in the appropriate manner. 

It is a start that began this conversation, which is needed.

As for whom it was directed and to what?  That is the question.

The orthodox leaning columnists and the dissident columnists cannot be lumped together though, that is where Bishop Zavala failed in his letter.

Very similar to Cardinal Bernardin lumping in “social justice” in the “Pro-Life” column, it provided cover for most of the bishops to claim to be pro-life while ignoring the real issue of the murder of innocent children.

Yes, that is how Bishop Zavala failed, he used a broad stroke.

Mark,

I try my best, though I do fall down at times as you well know. ;)

‘You remind me that the bishops have provided catechesis through the Compendium.  Great.  Except it’s a pretty big book, as is the Catechism.  Would you care to provide any appropriate citations?’

John, Just read ‘Caritas in Veritate’. In it, B16 does his usual above-average job of presenting & updating Catholic Social teaching by beginning with a panoramic overview, relating it to PopulorumProgressio, demonstrating the intrinsic cohesiveness between prolife & social Catholic teaching, defining Social teaching terms that most Catholics (left & right) misuse & drawing implications to our current world situation.

This is the kind of learning/growth that committed Catholics should be devoting our energies to…sending torpedoes to the USCCB is not.

*shakes head*
Mr. Shea, GB, I think you’ve missed the point.
It seems that I’m not going to persuade anyone to understand a differing viewpoint, so I guess I’d best concentrate on something else.  I should say though, I think we all need to check our biases VERY carefully before we start writing on the internet.  I’m seeing entirely too much presumption regarding others’ intentions.  We also need to more carefully consider how we approach answering questions.

Stillbelieve,
I don’t know what your next step should be—I don’t know for sure what you’ve attempted to accomplish with your letters.  If your writings CAN be construed as “torpedoes”, understand that “torpedo” letters likely won’t arrive on His Excellency’s desk.  Correspondence will be screened by a secretary who’ll probably toss such a letter into the circular file (the trash can).

Might I suggest a different approach?
Try using some of the resources that’ve been mentioned; collaborate with others for prayer, study, reflection, and even action.  At my parish, various people have begun bible study, Rosaries, and other efforts.  You might find these more helpful than trying to jar the bishops.

“I guess my criticism and Agent99’s of Mark’s online behavior don’t seem as “catty” or as “gossip,” do they, gentle readers?”

LOL!

Touche!

Mark,

The number of comments and the passionate tones indicate that you are a very good writer.  You make us think.  Keep up the good work.  Oh, I also like your responses to the commenters!

In my previous post, I combined Mark Shea and Matthew Warner - the last sentence refers to Mark Shea - all the rest to Matthew Warner.  SORRY!

SB, you write:

It was only as an aside I asked the bishops to show me where in the Bible we are directed to get governments to do what Jesus directed his followers to do.  It seemed to me there was a hugely important spiritual difference between the term “prolife” as originally coined and its diluted meaning after the bishops expanded it to include the so-called “social justice” issues.  I hope this clarifies my intent a bit more.  I welcome your response.

Fair enough.  However, it was not as an aside that you asked *me*, “where in the Bible does Jesus direct His disciples and followers to get governments to do the works he taught them to do themselves”.  It was the central question you put to me and you seemed greatly exercised about why you could not get an answer to that question.  The point of my reply was to get you to rethink your question, because, as framed, it makes no sense and sounds like an accusation not a serious attempt to get at any information.  I will take your word for it that it was neither the main thing bothering you, nor an attempt to play “gotcha”.  But I must point out that, if you were really wondering why the bishops were not replying, my guess is that they read it in a fairly similar way: as a disingenuous accusation and not as a request for information.

Beyond that, I can only repeat what I said before because I am not a spokesman for the bishops and am not privy to their thoughts.  So all I can do is point you to what they have revealed of their thoughts in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  Personally, I’ve never understood the hostility directed to the Seamless Garment idea.  Saying that human life is to be protected from conception to natural death and that part of this involves attention to human dignity seems to me to be a no-brainer in terms of Catholic social teaching.  I’ve never understood the claim that this somehow necessarily diminishes the crime of abortion or consigns the unborn to insignificance (and I’ve frankly never seen it reflected in the teaching of the bishops).  But that’s just me and, as I say, I’m not a spokesman for the bishops.

John:

Sorry you are angered.  It’s not my intention to do so.  I’m not quite clear on the purpose of your questions.  My own answers would be no, it depends, emphatically no,  yes,  yes, and “what on earth do you mean by ‘allow the faithful to enact laws based on well-formed consciences’?

You continue:

As Stillbelieve hinted (or stated), we’ve seen much more of the former than the latter.

The former vs. the latter what?  I don’t understand what you mean.

Small wonder that bishops would receive “nastygrams” from their flock.  Even if phrased poorly, we still have a right to challenge our leadership when they don’t do their job, nor allow us to do ours.

Now you seem to be agreeing that the question to the bishops was a nastygram (or at least sounded like one).  I’ll take stillbeliever’s word for it that it wasn’t.  But I’m glad you see my point.  I am, however, completely baffled by what you could possibly mean when you complain that the bishops don’t do their job giving us Catholic social teaching when I’ve just recommended a book—published by the bishops—which is intended to give us a summary of Catholic social teaching.  I’m doubly baffled by the mysterious claim that the bishops won’t “allow us to do our job”?  In what conceivable sense are the bishops preventing you or me from doing our jobs with respect to Catholic social teaching or the protection of the unborn?

It’s this spirit of irrational hostility in this thread—as though the bishops are somehow the enemies of the prolife movement instead of (quite obvious) some of its heartiest supporters that I find both silly and perverse.  No doubt prolifers are feeling frustrated in a culture of death.  But to bayonet your own troops is just folly.

Mark:
I’ve been trying to figure out why you and I seem to be unable to agree on many things.  I’ve just re-read our respective posts and I think I might’ve found something that explains a great deal.
I wrote:
Should he enact his own interpretation of the faith?
Your apparent answer:  Yes.

Given the context, I thought this a fairly obvious question, but perhaps not.  I’ve been known to known faster than I can type before….
So allow me to clarify:
Do you believe that a bishop (or a group of bishops) should actively collaborate with legislative bodies to enact legislation that meshes well with His Excellency’s particular interpretation of the faith?

Should he enact his own interpretation of the faith?
Your apparent answer:  Yes.

Actually, my answer was “emphatically no”.  Sorry that wasn’t clear.

A bishop’s job is to govern (the Church), teach, and sanctify, not to collaborate with legislative bodies to enact civil legislation.  Certainly, the doctrine he teaches can impinge on the ordering of civil society.  But it is not the bishop’s job to act as a civil authority or legislator.

That’s a relief.

I think though, you must be understanding something in this conversation very differently from the way I am.  I haven’t seen anything in particular of being irrational, hostile or otherwise.

Rigorous questions and a difficulty with understanding what question has actually been posed? Yes
Irrational hostility?  Not really

As much as anything, I’m stumped about how you thought Stillbelieve actually posed a question to you?
As I read it, it seemed more a question referred to you because the bishops didn’t respond.

The bishop presciently appealed to the blogging faithful to acknowledge the teaching church and to avoid rash judgments.  What does he get for his efforts?  He gets rebuke, and much of it anonymous.  It is no wonder he spoke out.

While this thread is most likely dead, I’d like to add to Mark and John’s lengthy discussion. It seems to me that a lot of the preceived nastiness in articles and comboxes would be mitigated by proper reference to “the bishops”. Often, the references float between a single, particular bishop, the American bishops, all bishops in union with the Pope (the Magisterium), and the USCCB. The American bishops are not the Magisterium, and certainly, no individual (American) bishop is infallible. The bishop’s conference, mostly, is a bunch of people (around 320) implicitly entrusted to carry out certain tasks, rarely in consultation with the American bishops, though sometimes, with individual bishops. Documents and such from the American bishops may be published by the USCCB, but that is just another day-to-day task performed by the machine that is the USCCB.
Bishop Zavala started it. He (a lone bishop) didn’t like how some people treated the U.S. bishops (et al., I suppose) and accused them of usurping the place of all the world’s bishops. All in one sentence. Then, the whole thing spun out of control from there.
As for blaming the American bishops, as a body, for the failings of a few, perhaps an analogy is appropiate. When a band is marching in a parade, you’ll surely see most marching in step, but some out of step. Most will be in tune, but some out of tune. If the ones in tune and in step don’t care about the poor performers, there is no reason for the band to even be in the parade. They should just stay home. If the people watching the parade simply overlook the errors, why watch the parade at all? We’d be a pretty sorry bunch, both spectators and band members alike, if we said “The tuba player’s great. Too bad about that trumpeter. Let’s give ‘em all a winner’s trophy just for trying.” So too with the U.S. bishops. There’s either a reason to do well, or there’s not. There’s either a reason to perfect the whole, or there’s not. As the guardians and dispensers of Almighty God’s treasury, which brings eternal salvation, either there’s a reason to take it seriously, or there’s not. As to how Jesus would bring his band members into step and playing in tune, I’d guess he’d start with love and understanding, but if that didn’t work…well, remember he wasn’t all that nice to that fig tree.
I think pointing out errors is fine, even with a bit of anger. It’s not like bloggers are writing posts calling people fat or ugly. If that were the case, the bishop might have a point, otherwise, he’s just talking.

Re Joseph Condon, please expand on what you said was the gist of Bishop Savala’s “appeal to the blogging faithful.”  Do you have any examples of what is meant by “acknowledge the teaching church and to avoid rash judgment?”  While I don’t have blog, I’m wondering if I would fall into the category of people he was referring to.

Here’s an example of what was a “rash judgment” of mine.  And the analogy of A Different John is illustrative of my motive for what I did about it.  I, for one, had not understood for years why the bishops changed the meaning of “prolife,” which was a word coined after Roe v Wade to counter the pro-abortion people calling themselves “prochoice.”  I knew instinctively that this was a fatal blow to the future success of the prolife movement.  It didn’t make sense why the bishops would do this to the babies.  Some twenty-six years later, I bought a used book from the library about the man responsible for this change in the U.S. Catholic meaning of “prolife,” and finally discovered the reason why it was done.  It was a biography simply titled with the man’s name – “Cardinal Bernardin.”  There was a subtitle, as well.  It read, “Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism.” (I didn’t even know there was a battle going on within the Church)  The “easing conflicts” was handled through adopting Bernardin’s method of communication between the bishops; i.e., through “collegiality.”  And the “battling for the soul of American Catholicism” turned out to be “keep(ing) the pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.”  He won that “battle,” also, and secured its future with his influence on who became future bishops.

Now, before ever discovering this book, I believed that the reason Cardinal Bernardin was so intent on changing the definition of prolife was to relieve the pressure he was getting from the Archdiocese political leadership, all Democrats (remember this was Chicago) - due to the fact that more and more Catholics, such as myself, were abandoning the Democrat Party because of their position on abortion.  That was a rash judgment on my part that couldn’t be proven – but it just made sense.  In reading the book I discovered that I was wrong.  Cardinal Bernardin made the change for his own political biases.  He injected politics into the Church and got the rest of the bishops to go along with him – even today they are still lobbying Congress in the name of the Church for measures that are disastrous for the people and the nation. – Obamacare, illegal immigration, national defense, and lets not forget measures that lead to sub-prime loans so that the lower income people could own homes; and then there are the labor unions, even ending capital punishment by merely claiming that it is no longer necessary; when there is proof that solitary confinement does not stop such prisoners from murdering others inside and outside of the prison walls.  I will be interested in understanding more of your perspective.  In light of my personal experiences and investigation, I need examples and evidence to understand better, not just words from the good bishop that say little other than we got to get along.

For the Alinsky-Bernardin-Campaign For Human Development-ACORN connection, see the 1998 Article by Lawrence J. Engel-from THEOLOGICAL STUDIES: VOL 59: - The Influence Of Saul Alinsky on the Campaign For Human Development [1998]. You will learn how liberals, dissenters, marxists etc used the Catholic Church - and saw how they could plant their first virulent seeds via the Church in Chicago.

Good Evening, stillbelieve, good to hear from you again.
Your dilemma sounds similar to mine, though we came to it by different paths.

Through a long, convoluted path that starts somewhere in the mid 80’s, I learned about the virtues and vices of the Kennedy clan, other Catholic politicians, politicians from other faith traditions, and how they all formed their votes.  Weirdly, the Church seemed to say abortion was unequivocally wrong; most Catholic politicians seemed to say abortion was right.  Well, not RIGHT, exactly, but..what?  Wrong, but not wrong enough?  Oddly enough, many Protestant politicians voted against abortion.  In these cases, the Catholics were pretty equivocal and dodgy, while the Protestants were quite firm and straightforward.  How could our Catholics, having the one, true faith, vote the wrong way, while the Protestants, lacking the full faith, vote the right way?

On this and many other issues, from war to economics to social concerns, it ran the same:  Everyone “voted their conscience”, but the Catholics routinely voted for permissive law and large government, while the Protestants voted for strict(er) law and small(er) government.  Considering what I’d learned about the philosophical underpinnings within the Constitution, I began to truly wonder why the Catholic politicians seemed so willing to overrule or undermine both Church and State ideals.

Eventually, where could this problem lead, but to the bishops’ doorsteps?  SOMEBODY surely had some means of “enforcing” Catholic doctrine..didn’t they?  Considering that Bishop Bruskewitz formally announced the excommunications of Masons and others in Lincoln, surely those same measures would apply to politicians…wouldn’t they?

Well, all the way along, at one time or another, Catholic clerics have implied—and Catholic politicians have professed to a fair degree—that every Catholic has/had a moral obligation to advocate for socialistic policies.  That whole thing about being one’s brother’s keeper, right?  Only problem is, as I’ve grown older and thought these puzzling, I’ve learned that..well, um, actually..the Church’s catechism partially CONDEMNS socialism and communism, while giving a reluctant agreement to capitalism!
Wow!

Then along comes the past few years where I’ve learned that the USCCB has spent much time and energy working with Democratic party officials to instill a healthy dose of socialism into law.  They don’t say it that way, sure, but that’s pretty much where it comes down.  Then, with the health care debate, the bishops endorsed the imposition wholeheartedly, then condemned it because of concerns with abortion funding.

I must say, I’m not the LEAST bit happy with this!

For one thing, I’d got the general notion through my teens that one took serious risks with hell by embracing capitalistic ideas. Discerning on my own that such risks exist, but are nowhere near as serious as had been portrayed?  Let’s just say I’ve been VERY unhappy!

Then again, I wouldn’t mind if the bishops would provoke a more thorough discussion of economics and economic systems.  Given how much influence money tends to have on our lives, I would think such a discussion quite helpful.
But what happened instead?  Instead of actively challenging all of us to learn our faith’s tenets, then work together to institute these ideas into law…instead of using normal citizens to accomplish the works of the Church like I thought Vatican II requested…the bishops choose to declare that they CAN and DO speak for ME to my elected Congressmen and President!  And then declare what a great good they’ve done for me!
Talk about arrogance!

Lucky for them, I actually believe in what the Church teaches, so I won’t be leaving Christ’s Church, but this DOES make it very difficult for me to take them seriously.

Thank you guy mcclung for the tip.  That article makes what I originally thought smelled, now stink to high heaven. How widespread is this?  In the biography, “Cardinal Bernardin,” the author says that Bernardin sent Rome, for their approval, his proposed changes to the U.S.Church’s definition of pro-life to include the so-called “social justices” issues.  The author says that Rome responded some six months later approving Bernardin’s changes with only a few modifications.  The review and approval was issued by Cardinal Joseph A. Ratzinger.  I’d sure like to see what Bernardin sent to Rome; and what Ratzinger sent back.

John, perhaps there are a lot more Catholics like us than we realize, and the bishops are hearing from them.  Maybe that’s what prompted some of what Bishop Savala was reported to say in his talk. I’m struggling with respect for the bishops, myself.  I’d sure like to get some straight answers from them but “collegiality” seems to have them all bottled up, afraid to step out of the pack and be a leader.  I sense things are only going to get worse with what they call “Immigration Reform” legislation.  A number of bishops don’t seem to have a problem stepping out in front to speak up for the illegals in Arizona.  They are going to see a strong push back from the people in the pews if they push hard for immigration legislation which they seemed to be gearing up to do.

stilbelieve:
Don’t forget, now-Pope Benedict hails from Germany, where state-run everything and state involvement IN everything, like most places in Europe, holds much more prominence than here in America.  This approval process might reveal nothing more than a European-leaning Vatican prelate OK’ing an agenda that doesn’t violate Church teachings.

Remember, though I find the bishops’ actions detestable, my objections could be construed mostly as cultural preference and a desire to see individuals make the most of their own lives.  We can likely make a decent case for concerns over subsidiarity vs community or charity, but I’d be wary of saying that these concerns bear enough moral weight to justify a religious battle.

“They are going to see a strong push back from the people in the pews if they push hard for immigration legislation which they seemed to be gearing up to do.”

No kidding!
I’m fairly nervous about that too.  I think I’m morally obligated to approve a slow, in-depth path to citizenship, but I’m concerned that, well, how do I say this?  Ultimately, I worry that we’ll get some workable legislation passed, but they’ll wind up doing it in a manner that fails to address some other legitimate concerns.
I worry in particular that a bill will pass that will accomplish citizenship slowly, but will neglect to address wider economic concerns and will also ignore cultural concerns.
I’ve heard one person mention something about a discussion we need to have about just wages.  I have yet to see anyone propose the beginning of such a discussion.  That’ll have a huge impact on how the incoming population mixes with those already here.
Then again, if we don’t also see a distinct effort to encourage ALL ethnic identities—or at least some of the largest ones—I fear we’ll see continued effective outrage as “newcomer” and “oldtimer” maintain the apparent status quo of stubborn intolerance for each other.

I’d LOVE to see that bishops address THOSE concerns, but they haven’t.

“The skill, talent, giftedness, insight, and grace of homosexual and lesbian members of the faith community is to be called forth, welcomed, and allowed expression. And this receptivity promotes the full development of the human person, enhances the life of the community, and serves to reveal the true face of God.” - Bishop Gabino Zavala, 1998 conference of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries

No further questions, Your Honor.

T

That does shed some light on from whence the bishop proceeds.

“The skill, talent, giftedness, insight, and grace of pedophile and pederastic members of the faith community is to be called forth, welcomed, and allowed expression. And this receptivity promotes the full development of the human person, enhances the life of the community, and serves to reveal the true face of God.”

I exchanged two depravities for two others in the Bishop’s comments. How does it sound now?

With guys like these in charge, no wonder we’re in trouble. Keep praying and don’t let the Pharisees get you down.

Well, we shall certainly hope that His Excellency has learned a few things about the virtue—or lack thereof—of the gay/lesbian agenda.  That or we can hope that he didn’t mean that in the sense it’s usually meant….  How long was this fellow in San Antonio?

Kevin - Are you suggesting that if somebody suffers from homosexuality then their gifts and talents as human beings and members of the Body are not useful? I’m not following the indictment.

Now, if the bishop was in any way attempting to normalize or legitimize homosexual behavior, then I would agree with your point. But I don’t know quite that much about this particular bishop and I don’t see it from the quote you gave, necessarily.

One of the problems here is that far too many of us are judging what the Bishop says about the media by whether or not he reaches out to homosexuals or how we suspect he may feel about Vatican II. I’m sure the bigger context that includes those kinds of issues is worthy of discussion. But his words about the Church and the media have value in and of themselves.

I promise it’s possible to agree with one of the Bishop’s points without agreeing with everything every bishop has ever said or done.

So if what I am reading is correct, only the orthodox Catholics and “Traddies” are “mean spirited”. Ever been publicly reprimanded for holding an orthodox view, agreeing with the Catechism, wanting to receive kneeling and/or on the tongue, disagree politely with a priest or nun teaching heresy publicly? Didn’t think so. Why it’s positively unthinkable.

“unchristian and hurtful to individuals. For example, we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful,judgmental language”  Guess that’s not judgmental language though.

But I shouldn’t dare defend Mother Church, whom I love dearly and gives me great joy. I think I’ll go cry and tell everyone you said I was “unchristian”. That’s just hurtful and mean !!

Describes me to a tee. Oh and by the way, I think the current President is a disaster, so please be sure to label me a bigot too.

GodsGadFly: Excellent !!  Well said ! Thank you !

mike bolognese:  Excellent commentary !  I love RealCatholicTV !  Never have to wonder where this man stands - in line with the Catholic church with no interpretation necessary. You and me too, eh?  Great !!!

Mark Shea: I’m a fan - thanks for writing so clearly. It helps.

For a church that professes to hold the fullness of truth, this thread is very confused.

People in our country and in our church are too concerned with feelings.  We have the truth in all it’s glory and fullness in Jesus Christ.  We have the truth in a way that no other Christians do.  We don’t have time to get our knickers in a twist over our hurt feelings about some Catholic blog, unless that blog is outside the teaching of the magisterium.

O.K. fine, you don’t like the “tone” of a certain blogger (Mark Shea? haha!) or EWTN, or Catholic Answers or WHATEVER. . .don’t listen.  It’s as simple as that.  If truth is being told by those “strident” voices, so be it.

I can think of a few prophets in the Old Testament who were pretty strident too.  I’m sure people muttered about them under their breath at the time also.  Catholics NEED to speak out more.  There are many saints who spoke out about less than holy popes in the past, too.  Have courage to speak out, and those of you who don’t (have courage to speak out), don’t judge the ones who do.

It’s “nice” to have a positive tone, but believe me, sometimes it’s just not possible to tell someone they might be going to hell and expect them to hear it with a “positive” tone.  People who are in serious soul killing error always complain about “tone” the very first thing.

Mark, you just keep on writing, even if you hurt my feelings.  I can take it.  I want to follow truth.  God has always blessed me in my search for truth, and I see no reason why he won’t continue to bless me in that search, even if my feelings get hurt from time to time.

The comments here have reinforced my own findings and experience.  Much of what is wrong with our U.S. Church leaders, clergy, religious and laity is that they don’t believe what they profess to believe. 

The fundamentals of what we are to believe in order to call ourselves Christians were debated and identified 1600 years ago.  We profess those beliefs every weekend in Mass as we stand after the Gospel and Homily and VOLUNTARILY recite “our” Profession of Faith.  A short while later, we stand again and pray the only prayer Jesus ever taught us so that we would know how to talk to the Father in which we pray for His “will be done on earth…and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”  This is the fundamental truth of the “one true” Church. 

The questions is – do each of us believe what we “profess” to believe and pray for?  If we really did ask our self that question, and can look our self in the mirror and answer, “Yes,” then how could any Catholic Christian give their name identification and support (with votes) to a worldly organization that is diabolically opposed to what they claim to profess to believe and pray for? 

The explanation of being able to do that is what is behind the dialog going on within the American Church today. It should be a civil discussion.  But when you have a highly regarded Cardinal like Bernardin turn a major spiritual issue like abortion into a political issue motivated by his own personal political leanings, resulting in Catholics electing people like Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Sebelius, etc while millions of God’s creation with souls are murdered by a small number of medical doctors, one has to ask:

“Do Catholics believe God creates life to be aborted?” Is abortion not evil”  Is God in contradiction with Himself?  Or are Catholics in contradiction with what they say they believe and pray for?

My latest post today here at the Register is (kind of) a follow up to some thoughts on this post.

Would love to know what y’all think and if/where I’m going wrong!  God bless and thank you all so much for your contribution to the conversation!

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/bishops_and_ugly_babies/

Matt, I think the comments found here provide confirmation of the concerns expressed by the Bishop. Oh, and by the way, I am speaking as an orthodox Catholic.

i write a blog. it is NOT a “Catholic blog” or even a religious blog, in fact i rarely mention religion .... but i do write a blog, and as such i have been right in the middle of people screaming and having drama fits because
1. i said something they disagree with
2 i said something unfortunately badly stated
3. i was using words they dont understand/misunderstand
4. they are trolling
5. the written word problem (a lack of vocal tone, or facial expression)
or some combination of the above.

i would expect someone running a “professional” blog to spend more time proof reading and re writing their post than i do (mine is strictly amateur) but i cannot but feel the same problems MUST come up sometimes.  especially since unlike most columnists in newpapers, a blog is rarely edited by anyone else, which means proofreading and tone issues WILL slip by.

it is certainly a good thing to bear in mind that as a “public Catholic” we must be good examples…. and to keep that even mmore in mind in the rather hurried media that is a blog…. but i think you also have to READ with charity and sense…...

This being against divisiveness sounds so Obamaish - the liberals messiah.  Jesus came to bring division against the world and the evil one.  The Christian life is counter-cultural.  For those who think that we must get along with the world and condone baby-killing, I say you are traitors who sell out the Lord.  Like the serpent in Eden, you seduce believers to move forward and let abortion stay as the law of the land and Obamacare to fund it will trillions of tax dollars so that PP can perform 5 abortions on every teenager.  And you want the bishops to shut up and accept these.  I pray for your conversion.  But if you don’t, then you will go to hell.

Rick Vines – “condone” is defined as:  to pardon or overlook voluntarily : esp : to treat as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance.  While I think that applies to the pro-abortion party in general, especially its leadership, I don’t think that can really apply to Catholic Democrats, specifically. 

I think Catholic Democrats sincerely believe they are prolife now as Bernardin and the bishops have defined it.  And while they anguish over abortion, they politically come down on the side of what they think is best for those who are born and who may need help.  They assign that help to be coming from the pro-abortion party.  That gives them some comfort that they are helping in some positive way.  And that makes them feel good. 

Here’s the problem.  Prior to Bernardin’s political move to expand the definition of prolife in order to “keep the prolife movement from falling completely under control of the right wing conservatives” (Cardinal Bernardin, biography by Eugene Kennedy),  sincere Catholic Democrats were having to face for the first time, and choose, between their professed religious beliefs and their long held political identity.  A lot of them were choosing their Catholic faith and were leaving the Democrat Party.  The U.S. bishops adopting Bernardin’s idea of adding the so-called “social justice” issues ended that self examination and soothed the consciences of Catholic Democrats enough to allow themselves to remain true to their life long political identity without having to leave the Church.  The negative result of that was the continued election of pro-abortion Democrat legislators, governors, and presidents.  That has produced the disastrous result of abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. Bishops have not seen the connection of their “social justice” issues with abortion being the disaster for the unborn as it has been all these years, nor heeded the clarion observation of JP II that such “social justice” issues “are false and illusionary if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

As for anyone going to Hell for any of this, I leave to God.  The focus, I believe, should be on those sincere Catholic Democrats, clergy and laity alike, urging them to examine the results of their continued support of the pro-abortion party all these years producing any positive results concerning those social-justice issues.  We know it has been disastrous for the unborn.  I don’t see it any better for us, the born.  If anything, it has made things worse for practically everyone and put not only our own, future individual health care at risk, but our very lives, national security wise.  We, the born, now have no more control over our own lives and safety than the unborn.

Dear Rick Vines,

Thanks for your insightful post.  A couple of quetions come to mind in response to it.

“And while they (Catholic Democrats) anguish over abortion….”  Care to name a few names?  I can’t think of a single one here in Illinois among the scores of Democratic politicians who profess to be faithful Catholics and who also anguish over more than their re-election and the promotion at most of dubious social programs.  And I can count on one hand the number of sermons that I have heard in the last several decades that even mention the gross evil of abortion from sundry Father Oprahs in many parishes.

“We know it has been disastrous for the unborn…”  One might say even fatal?  No?

“There was consistent agreement [among brother bishops] that one aspect that is most alarming to us about media is when it becomes unchristian and hurtful to individuals. For example, we are particularly concerned about blogs that engage in attacks and hurtful, judgmental language. We are very troubled by blogs and other elements of media that assume the role of Magisterium and judge others in the Church. Such actions shatter the communion of the Church that we hold so precious.”

This is the sort of language that made a pariah of the Wanderer.  They were “harsh,” they were “judgmental.” That’s right.  The reason for that is that they broke the sex abuse story in the mid 1980’s. It was in the Wanderer week after sickening week.  They were furious.  And anyone who read them was furious.  As they should have been. If the bishops and pastors of the Church had listened to that prophetic voice, as harsh and as furious as it was, it would have saved the Church millions of dollars. OR, we would have taken our lumps thirty years ago.  Reverend Bishops and gentle pastors, prophets are not diplomats.  They are not PR men.  The question is not whether they are gentle, kind and obsequious, but whether they are right.  The Wanderer was right. You (pl) were wrong. Big time.

As for what is happening in the blogshere, listen up! You might stumble across a truth that your pastoral council finds distasteful and won’t mention, but which you need to take into account.

Respectfully,

LMG

Mr. D’Hippolito:
With all due respect, sir, I find your appraisal of Catholic faith intensely insulting!  Every single one of the “problems” you mention, especially with regard to regulation, has a legitimate spiritual purpose.

I would even contend that it’s precisely because of “relying on the Holy Spirit”, (ie. the “spirit of Vatican II”) and a gross LACK of enforcement of the legal rules that the Roman Catholic Church has come to the state of a shambles that we’ve reached.

Because we’ve abandoned “unnecessary regulation”, half the Catholics I’ve ever met are firmly convinced that they are now, and can be in the future, their own Pope.  That’s why so many scream every time a holy bishop dares to do his actual job and insist that people actually LIVE what their faith supposedly teaches!

Legalisms didn’t cause dead hearts.  Refusing to understand why the legalisms were there and throwing out the lawbook caused the dead hearts!

Mr. Gilbert:
Oddly enough, I’m slightly inclined to disagree with you on this point about the Wanderer.  While I’ve never read it, your comments hint that they’re reporting could easily have tended more toward muck-raking than a search for justice.  After all, if they were that interested in addressing the problem in the 80’s, why did they not aid victims in bringing problems to law enforcement or to Rome?

I have to say that their efforts really sound to me more akin to SNAP’s typical method.

Does anyone really trust in God’s grace anymore?  Or are they more interested in money/selling papers?

Mr. D’Hippolito:
If you think I agreed with your main point, you desperately misunderstood mine!

Regrettably, I can’t take enough time and space to respond to everything, but I will say this:  You seem to have a VERY poor understanding of what the role of the priest might really be.  You also VERY poorly understand the role of the “elder” priest, the bishop.

May I suggest learning more about what these ordinations truly intend?

Most of your concerns seem to me almost as much urban myth or stereotype as they are Truth.  Christ didn’t come to free us from an “oppressive religious system”; he came to free us with the only “religious system” that would do us any good.  All we need to do is learn how that system works and come ever closer to Him by doing so.

About the only orthodox voice in some quarters IS Catholic bloggers, and dissident bishops who are not doing their jobs to protect the deposit of faith and getting a little stung that laypeople are calling them back to the truths of the faith.

Our eyes are open to the damage that these characters can do to the Body of Christ, so TOO LATE when they throw around vague terms, declaring us “unchristian” and “hurtful” and “judgemental.”  No examples are given of our grave missteps.

They have lost their good authority.  Keep blogging.

I am an orthodox Catholic, and I share the utter frustration people feel about what has happened with the faith, the so-called liberal (a term that gives legitimacy to them in my mind, the proper term is heterodox) destruction that’s been foisted on our church, etc.  I share, too, the slack-jawed wonder at the apparent behavior of the bishops.

However, a saint once said, be more concerned about your own sins than the sins of other people.  As much as I deplore what’s going on, I have no doubt that there are orthodox bloggers who fit the good bishop’s description.  Just because you’re right doesn’t make you above reproach, and just because someone criticizes bloggers doesn’t make them the victim of a liberal conspiracy, as some of you give the impression.

Perhaps if we made sure we spent at least as much time (if not more) praying for the bishops as we do criticizing them (I presume you do not judge them), we’d be out of this mess.

Folks would do well to read what St. Ignatius of Antioch had to say about bishops.  He wrote in many different places about them, but here is just one:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Trallians, A.D. 110, 2,1:

“Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying.  It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice,—that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him.”

So I have a question about this idea as expressed by the bishops.  If we attribute these comments to the motive of being “liberal” and resenting orthodox correction—in essence attributing bad motives to them—is this judging, and are we proving the bishops just and correct in their complaint if we do this?

I think St. Ignatius—and most saints—would say to be obedient to the bishop unless he asked you to do something contrary to the faith.  Whether a bishop is heretical I leave to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff.  Certainly I am free to avoid what I believe to be error and proclaim what I believe to be truth.  But to be honest, I don’t think the greatest problem is bishops commanding us to do what is wrong or bishops teaching heresy.  The problem I see is inaction—heresy or bad praxis being tolerated—and administrative decisions that do not serve the best interest of the church.  For the most part, none of us are faced with the question of whether to disobey our bishops.  My point in quoting St. Ignatius was to suggest that you don’t treat a bishop like you’d treat an errant DRE.  They are successors of the apostles, and their office deserves respect, even if their behavior doesn’t.

Canon law gives us a right to make our needs known to the pastors of our church.  I am not denying that.  But we should do so with charity, humility, and respect, if not for the person, then for the office.  Becoming angry, vituperative malcontents does not serve our own salvation well, nor our cause, nor the good of the church.  If the bishops hear, but do not listen, let us be firmly but respectfully persistent.  If we are ignored, their blood be on their own head—we did our part, God will judge.  If things do not go our way, we do what we can with charity, humility, and respect, and leave the rest to God.  “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” (Ephesians 4:31)

The problem I see is inaction—heresy or bad praxis being tolerated—and administrative decisions that do not serve the best interest of the church.
Eric, I suggest you read the following. It mentions the current Pope refusing to publicly reprimand the president of the German bishops’ conference for publicly denying the doctrine of expiation, which all Christian denominations believe in (from www.podles.org):
When I researching the book on clerical murders that I have underway, I noticed that even secular newspapers from 1900 -1920 used the words expiation in regard to punishment, especially capital punishment. Now the word expiation appears only in crossword puzzles.
<b>The word and the concept appear to be suffering a similar fate in Catholic theology:
<b>According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops’ conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death in a recent interview with a German television station.
<b>Zollitsch said that Christ “did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat.”
<b>Instead, Jesus had offered only “solidarity” with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said “that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity.”
<b>The interviewer asked, “You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?”
<b>Monsignor Zollitsch responded, “No.”
<b>The loss of the sense of expiation may help explain why the hierarchy treated abusers so lightly: expiatory punishment is a forgotten concept.
What are lay Catholics supposed to do with the sitting Pope—a man who acquired the nickname “panzerkardinal” for his focus on orthodoxy—refuses to confront such nonsense?
Now, to your other points.
Canon law gives us a right to make our needs known to the pastors of our church….But we should do so with charity, humility, and respect, if not for the person, then for the office.
The first problem is that most bishops do not seem either to know Canon Law or obey it. The fact is that many act like medieval potentates instead of servants, let alone successors of the apostles. The second is that men who view authority in such a way will not be moved, sadly, by “charity, humility and respect.”
The sexual abuse crisis provides an example. Fr. Thomas Doyle warned the American bishops in private in 1985 that the financial and moral cost of ignoring the problem would be beyond prohibitive. Not only did they ignore him but his own bishop—the Archbishop of the Military Apostolate, now the Archbishop of Baltimore—tried to cashier Fr. Doyle prematurely so he wouldn’t qualify for retirement benefits. Military officers saw what was happening and put a stop to that injustice.
What eventually moved the bishops wasn’t “charity, humility and respect” but civil lawsuits that have financially eviserated many dioceses and archdiocese (such as Tacoma, Washington). What eventually moved the current Pope in recent months wasn’t “charity, humility and respect” but international outcry over the behavior of his immediate subordinates in the Vatican.
You can talk about Canon Law and “charity, humility and respect” all you want, Eric. But the reality is that no set procedures exist in this Church for the redress of legitimate grievances. Nor are they likely to develop as long as bishops view themselves as medieval potentates…and as long as devout-yet-naive Catholics give them excessive deference in a misguided interpretation of orthodoxy.

Good Evening, Mr. D’Hippolito,
So, just for kicks, I followed the links you provided.

...

...So what precisely were you trying to prove?  That various members of the Church have been imperfect throughout history, even to the point of committing very grave sin?  You had to read these postings to prove THAT?!
Have you read the Bible in depth?  If you have, did you catch the significance of Peter’s betrayal before the cock crowed?  Or have you caught the little “discussion” between Peter and Paul regarding Peter’s behavior to the Gentiles?
Even so, Christ still had the conversation with Peter regarding tending the flock, didn’t he?

So in other words, as Ecclesiastes says, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
I assure you, the Church has seen its share of great saints and sinners all the way from the beginning.  And it’s STILL here!

As far as Benedict’s rebuke of a Cardinal is concerned..what does that prove?  That Benedict and/or the Roman Curia don’t things the way you think they ought be done?
So what??

I don’t think anyone is ignoring the facts around us.  If anything, we’re waiting for the appropriate authorities, both civil and spiritual, to do their actual job, so we can get on with life.
When the priests get back to doing their real job as a group, we’ll see the Church demonstrate how holy it can truly be.  Until then, we’ll need to keep praying for our priests to see the light.

Dear Angry,

If we must violate the virtues of charity, humility, and respect to accomplish our aims, we must keep this moral principle in mind:  It is never permissible to do evil that good may result.

I’m not saying you can’t file lawsuits, but I don’t think that intrinsically violates these virtues.  It may even be the most charitable thing to do. 

Don’t confuse charity with niceness.  While I advocate strategic use of gentleness, charity is not gentleness, either.  It’s a heart of unconditional love, with the best interests of the person at heart. 

You complain that this does not work.  Fine, but at least you’ve washed your hands of their blood.  Let someone else commit the evil that does convince them.  Otherwise you’re like Judas:  Accomplishing the redemption of the world at the cost of your own soul.

Dear Angry Catholic:
I must admit to being stumped by your comments.  What do you mean by declaring that the Church needs internal procedures to handle legitimate claims for redress?  What do you mean by declaring that apostolic succession has meant the rule of men, not of law, or that we laity are “second class” citizens in our Church?

I believe canon law provides appropriate procedures for redress.  As for other concerns, the Church isn’t a democracy, nor should she be.
Christ gave appropriate authority within his Church to those we call bishops and priests from the beginning.
If those bishops and priests are not always perfect, perhaps we should pray for them, rather than demand our chance to exact our “rights”.

Hello Angry Catholic,
I don’t have much time to write, but here’s a few thoughts:
- I’m always suspicious about whether lawyers ever truly solved any problems, especially regarding abuse.  These claims have almost always struck me as actions motivated by..well, a lack of compassion for others, among other things.  I know, people don’t like to hear that, but I don’t believe that God would be incapable of cleaning up His Church by other means.
- I’m also VERY suspicious of efforts to adjust the Church’s procedures for addressing general problems.  It’s really just this simple:  If I can’t trust a bishop to consider the needs of his flock carefully, why can I trust his flock any more?
I don’t think I can.

We know how well democracy prevents corruption. Look at the US.

Angry Catholic,
I must say, you’re aptly named.  I wish I could address all the concerns your raise, but I’m not convinced that you’re willing to consider a different view.  I’m afraid you’ll have to discern the difficulties with your ideas on your own.

Just remember:  It’s VERY easy to critique a bishop.  It’s NOT very easy to help solve the problems they must address.
If you want holy bishops, get down on your knees and start praying.  If you wait for the world to correct them, it’s going to be VERY painful for you just as much as for them.

I’m saddened to see that you see things this way, Angry Catholic, but your arguments don’t persuade me to change my view.  I don’t know what else I can say beyond, “learn your faith” and pray.

I’ve seen the results of most of our political activism within and without the Church.  We’ve been nowhere near as efficacious as some would insist.  If anything, we’ve regressed.

Again, you can believe what you want, but insisting that the Church MUST change something NOW won’t solve problems.

Take care, Angry Catholic.

I’m troubled by those bishops who reject or ignore the Magisterium. Since I do not see much fraternal correction by other bishops, I see no problem with lay catholic bloggers filling up the vacuum, and critisizing unfaithful bishops and other progressive Catholics for their lack of fidelity to Christ’s Church.

Rene, good point.  If you would like some insight on how the bishops got this way, I recommend reading a favorable biography written by Eugene Kennedy about his long time friend, Cardinal Bernardin, while the much liked Cardinal was still alive.  The title of the book is simply “Cardinal Bernardin,” with a subtitle that says a lot about the what one will discover while reading it.  The subtitle is, “Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism.”

My question to you, and to anyone else who may have been Catholic and an adult in the ’80 is, Did you know there were “conflicts” within the Church, and a “battle for the soul of American Catholicism” going on back then?  I didn’t.

I hope it is not too late to respond to Bishop Zavala. In the last few months a Cardinal referred to the people of Arizona as “Nazis”, an Archbishop referred to fellow Bishops as “hysterical”, another Bishop called SB1070 “draconian”, another charged those opposing Obamacare as “lacking civility”, another called supporters of SB1070 “racists and xenophobic”, another called Germans/Poles/Hungarians “haters”, and these are the attacks I have read about!

Question, who in the USCCB’s Communication Committee is concerned about Cardinals/Archbishops/Bishops who engage in ‘attacks and hurtful, judgmental language’? It is most alarming to me when Church hierarchy’s comments become ‘unchristian and hurtful to individuals’.

Cain and Abel
GENESIS 4:1-16
The New American Bible

Adultery:441
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

Hey folks,
I want to chime in with some thoughts just topping my head, as I’m sure there are post modern catholic bloggers who just love to show the hypocracy, the political manuvering in the Church, etc. They have a right to, but is not the Spirit of the Lord more gentle, except when the scandal hits the roof and all around. We’re obviously not immune to that, but it seems to me this is just what happens in any large family.
We have our blo-hards, our devout, our one-issue voters, etc. I surely fit into a few of these categories.
In my mind the Cardinal is jumping over rats like Act-Up!, taking consecrated Communion wafers and throwing them down and worse. And then publicly telling of it. That is the extreme end, and is deliberated.
I found a host on the floor last month on my pew’s floor! I consumed it, not knowing if it was consecrated or not.
I’m still not reading like I wish, but my heart’s in the right place.
In Christ’s love and mercy,
John francis Luke,
a disciple

It’s been said that God does nothing in the affairs of men except they pray. Prayer is the catalyst for worldwide transformation. Prayer incites the angels, restrains darkness, and releases nations into their destiny. http://www.kvministries.com

Armchair popes are like those who came into the Garden to arrest Him.  Raca! 

(That’s what I wish the bishop had said, but he was kind, and “Raca!” is a sin.  Accurate, but a sin.)

It looks like some on this thread are determined to prove the Bishops right.
.
“Just remember:  It’s VERY easy to critique a bishop.  It’s NOT very easy to help solve the problems they must address.”
.
Exactly.

Carol O, thank you for your comments today; it brought me back to this article and very interesting discussion which I enjoyed re-reading.  Thanks again for resurrecting the subject/discussion because I have more to add on some recent developments that may be of interest to others who contributed to the discussion.  I also have a question for Mark Shaw and Matthew Warner that I asked a Cardinal recently with surprising results.