The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionVatican II themes: The church as mystery, or sacrament
by Richard McBrien on Jul. 18, 2011
“The best preparation for the new millennium,” the late Pope John Paul II wrote in his apostolic letter of 1994, Tertio millennio adveniente (“On the approaching third millennium”), “can only be expressed in a renewed commitment to apply, as faithfully as possible, the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church.”
The problem is that many Catholics believe, not without reason, that the leadership of the Church has been in the process these past few decades of ignoring or even dismantling the reforms achieved at the Second Vatican Council.
This dismantling effort is revealed in the changing of the texts of the Mass and the other sacraments (often referred to as the “reform of the reform”) beginning on the First Sunday of Advent, and in the appointment of bishops deemed unquestionably loyal to the Holy See, especially on issues such as contraception, the ordination of women, and obligatory clerical celibacy.
The changed complexion of the U.S. hierarchy, to take but a few examples, was dramatically disclosed in the insistence of some leading American bishops (one of whom was subsequently called to Rome and made a cardinal) that it would be a grave sin for Catholics to vote for Senator John Kerry, a Catholic, for President in 2004 or for Senator Barack Obama in 2008; the widespread opposition of many more bishops to the University of Notre Dame’s invitation to now-President Obama to be its Commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient in 2009; and the virtual silence of the bishops in key states such as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida regarding the attack on workers’ bargaining rights, long a linchpin of Catholic social teaching.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next several weeks, Fr. McBrien's columns will explore the major ecclesiological themes or principles proclaimed at the Second Vatican Council.
Vatican II themes: The church as mystery, or sacrament
Vatican II themes: The people of God
Vatican II themes: The church as servant
Vatican II themes: The church as communion
Vactican II themes: The church is ecumenical
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Such bishops, in turn, attract (or discourage) a certain type of candidate for the priesthood. So the problem comes closer and closer to home for the majority of Catholics, one in ten of whom have already drifted away from the Church. According to the recent Pew Study, ex-Catholics would constitute the second largest Christian denomination if they were considered a church unto themselves.
It is more than appropriate during a time such as this to be sure that we embrace anew each of the ecclesiological contours of Vatican II’s teachings. That is why I am devoting several columns over the next few weeks to the major ecclesiological themes or principles proclaimed at the council.
The first and most basic ecclesiological principle at Vatican II is that the Church is a mys-tery, or sacrament, and not only or even primarily an institution or organiza-tion.
To say that the Church is a mystery, or sacrament, means, in the words of the late Pope Paul VI, that it is “a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God.”
In other words, the Church is not just a religious organization to which we belong or which we serve, as good churchmen or churchwomen. Rather, the Church is the corporate presence of God in Christ, with a unity created and sustained by the Holy Spirit.
“I believe in the Church” does not mean “I believe in, am loyal to, the leadership or the rules of the Church.” Only God is the proper object of faith -- but in this case, God as present and active in the Church.
The council’s sacramental understanding of the Church helped us to see how essential renewal and reform are to the Church’s mission and ministries.
More and more since Vatican II, the Church has been challenged to practice what it preaches because we recognize more clearly than ever before that the Church has a missionary obligation to manifest visibly what it embodies invisibly.
The Church is called to be a visible, communal sign of the invisible, renewing presence of God in the world and in human history.
“The first means of evangelization,“ Pope Paul VI declared in his 1975 apostolic exhortation on evangelization, Evangelii nuntiandi, “is the witness of an authentically Christian life.”
He continued: “Modern men and women listen more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if they do listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses....
“It is therefore by its conduct and by its life that the Church will evangelize the world, in other words, by its living witness of fidelity to the Lord Jesus–the witness of poverty and detachment, of freedom in the face of the powers of this world, in short, the witness of sanctity” (n. 41).
Those who insist on their role as teachers of the Church must take to heart those words of Paul VI. Their teaching is empty if it is not accompanied by a clear and compelling witness to the Gospel itself.
© 2011 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
| Editor’s Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Fr. McBrien’s column, "Essays in Theology," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow the directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add "Essays in Theology" to your list. |
Perhaps, when invoking the
Perhaps, when invoking the Second Vatican Council, you could quote from some of its documents, Father McBrien?
Father McBrien cannot quote
Father McBrien cannot quote from those documents since doing so would disprove his arguments. For example, if one were to look strictly at the document Sacrosanctum Concilium on the reform of the Sacred Liturgy, one would be unable to find any text that commands that parishes remove statuary, dismantle Communion rails, of turn altars around (contrary to popular understanding, a "freestanding altar" meant one that the priest could walk all the way around while he was incensing it; it does not mean an altar that the priest can stand on one side of and face the people while celebrating Mass).
In addition, nowhere in any of the documents would one find calls for the ordination of women, approval for artificial contraception, or acceptance of abortion or homosexual behavior. Neither do any of the conciliar documents call for a break with tradition or a total reform of Church teaching. Rather they call for a reform in the way in which that teaching is presented. In other words, the Council sought to present the age-old unchanging teaching of the Church in a new and more modern way.
No, the ones who betrayed the Council are the bishops, priests and laity who perverted it into some sort of massive assault on Tradition and dogma, which it was not. Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are merely trying to end that perversion known as the "spirit of Vatican II" and return to the authentic teaching of the Council as contained in its documents.
You dudes have never lifted
You dudes have never lifted the mighty tomes of our church, not only the documents themselves, but also their brilliant interpretation by the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien for us exiled mournfully alone in the anglo American:
Catholicism: New Study Edition--Completely Revised and Updated
The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism
The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism
and for your level of study
Inside Catholicism (Signs of the sacred)
see also
Report on the Church: Catholicism After Vatican II
although mere Truth has never delayed your typing, Clint, nor the need to read before forming your august opinion
Dear charles j. scanlon, Why
Dear charles j. scanlon, Why would one contnually refer to books written by the same author about subjects about which no definitive position has been taken by anybody but he, the author. It seems to me that one does not grow unless one reads all sides of any issue and then if duly educated and is confident in anything one has read forms an opinion fully taking Scripture and understanding of Scripture into his thought process. Ranting on about books that have no meaning to the general population is not always the best to resolve anything.
Are you stating, Mr. Warren,
Are you stating, Mr. Warren, that Professor McBrien would not "read[] all sides of any issue" on which he comments?????? Including scripture??????
I'm not aware of any college/university professor who could continue in higher education with such a deficient approach to intellectual pursuits.
Your critique here makes no sense.
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, And
Dear Joseph Jaglowicz, And where in Sacred Scripture does Fr. McBrien find support for contraception?
The Reverend Father Richard
The Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien has dedicated his lifetime in humble service to our Holy Mother Church in making accessible to the "general population" the most profound mysteries and specialized dogma of our Faith, as a true theologian and professor of Roman Catholic Theology, bringing our less uneducated understanding ever more fully to our Faith.
The fact you do not know this reveals you do not even read these excellent and insightful essays, but merely comment dismissively and facilely, without hesitation, without humility, faithlessly.
Were you to open, for one, the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, for example, you would discover the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien serves it as editor in chief, as well as contributor, with countless other scholarly contributors from all perspectives sharing their special areas of study. It is a unique and irreplaceable jewel shining with our Faith, calling us to further understanding and knowledge and love of Our self-divided Church.
You failure to see this before typing the above calumny reveals as much about your obstinate refusal to know more fully our Church and our Faith than it does about the priceless value to our pilgrimage in Faith of the life long labors of the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien.
prayerfully,
Charles J. SCanlon
Dear charles j. scanlon,
Dear charles j. scanlon, Where in Sacred Scripture is contraception looked upon favorably?
Dear charles j. scanlon,
Dear charles j. scanlon, Where in Sacred Scripture is contraception looked upon favorably?
Dear Tom Warren,
Where, in Sacred Scripture, is contraception looked upon unfavourably?
Where, for that matter, is it even mentioned?
tom warren on Jul. 21, 2011.
tom warren on Jul. 21, 2011.
You stated:
"Dear charles j. scanlon, Why would one contnually refer to books written by the same author about subjects about which no definitive position has been taken by anybody but he, the author. It seems to me that one does not grow unless one reads all sides of any issue and then if duly educated and is confident in anything one has read forms an opinion fully taking Scripture and understanding of Scripture into his thought process. Ranting on about books that have no meaning to the general population is not always the best to resolve anything."
----------------------------------------------
Tom, apparently you have missed the wide scope of topics that McBrien refers to in this essay. And I assure you that every one of them has been discussed with definite positions taken by several people.
It seems to me that:
1) You have never read any of McBrien's books---but are only reacting to his
essays (or those parts of his essays that you are able to comprhend).
2) IF you ever do pick up any of Richard McBrien's books---check out his
citations and bibliography. He refers to many credible authorities---and
his positions concur with theirs.
3) Many of the references that McBrien makes in his essay are topics that
have been discussed in other essays on this website, other websites, and
Catholic periodicals. Along with that---several other authors have
written books on those very same topics. For example, the late Cardinal
Avery Dulles wrote an important little book called "Models of the Church"
which discussed the Church as mystery and the Church as sacrament in two
chapters. This book enjoyed was used as an application for many groups
within the church from pastoral councils to religious communities.
4) Many of the topics (from McBrien's books) that you dismiss as having no
meaning to the general population---have a great deal of meaning to many
Catholics
5) If you are going to criticize someone of the caliber of Richard
McBrien, you had better have a background much richer than that of the
general population.
CWG on Jul. 19, 2011. You
CWG on Jul. 19, 2011.
You stated:
"Father McBrien cannot quote from those documents since doing so would disprove his arguments. For example, if one were to look strictly at the document Sacrosanctum Concilium on the reform of the Sacred Liturgy, one would be unable to find any text that commands that parishes remove statuary, dismantle Communion rails, of turn altars around (contrary to popular understanding, a "freestanding altar" meant one that the priest could walk all the way around while he was incensing it; it does not mean an altar that the priest can stand on one side of and face the people while celebrating Mass).
In addition, nowhere in any of the documents would one find calls for the ordination of women, approval for artificial contraception, or acceptance of abortion or homosexual behavior. Neither do any of the conciliar documents call for a break with tradition or a total reform of Church teaching. Rather they call for a reform in the way in which that teaching is presented. In other words, the Council sought to present the age-old unchanging teaching of the Church in a new and more modern way.
No, the ones who betrayed the Council are the bishops, priests and laity who perverted it into some sort of massive assault on Tradition and dogma, which it was not. Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are merely trying to end that perversion known as the "spirit of Vatican II" and return to the authentic teaching of the Council as contained in its documents."
----------------------------------------
Bah humbug, CWG!
The Second Vatican Council was a general council of the Catholic Church. The mandate for liturgical reform was passed by the council with an overwhelming majority, so it is the tradition of the Catholic Church, like it or lump it.
Unfortunately, partly as a result of the schism of the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his followers, there has been an attempt of the part of "neo-cons" to portray the reforms of Vatican II as something that was foisted upon the church by a small minority of professionals contrary to the will of bishops and many other people in the church. This is nothing but SLANDER!
The reforms of the council were carried out under Pope Paul VI in a spirit of complete collegiality. Every suggested adaptation, change, or modification was sent out to every Catholic bishop in the world, and the responses that came in were treated with the utmost respect. When changes were severly questioned or opposed by a large number of bishops, they were revised according to the will of the bishops and then sent back again.
The notion that the liturgical reform was somehow forced on an unknowing church by some group of "liturgists," (as if that was a dirty word) is a lie, and that needs to be said.
Dear LittleBear, Here again.
Dear LittleBear, Here again. All the changes have been made. Nothing in either our Tradition or Dogmas have been changed. What is your point?
tom warren on Jul. 22,
tom warren on Jul. 22, 2011.
You stated:
"Dear LittleBear, Here again. All the changes have been made. Nothing in either our Tradition or Dogmas have been changed. What is your point?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that there is much more to the understanding of our Catholic faith than in being merely a literalist and worshipping "dogmas" or even "traditon". There is a greater depth to everything. It is writers like Richard McBrien and so many others who reveal the "WHY" and the "HOW" behind
what we believe. It is so much more than the "WHAT" of our belief.
Besides, Tom, so often you sound like a recent convert from some Protestant Evangelical church. These good folks used to thump their bibles and claim,
"My bible sez...." Now, as Catholic converst, they thump their copies of Catholic dogmas and the CCC and say "The CCC sez...." But sadly, they think that all in this Church of ours is in black and white. Maybe that gives them the same comfort as a pacifier gives to a baby.
But as long as this Church of ours is on this earth----all the changes HAVE NOT been made. And if you study Church history----it is easy to see the shifts in Church pronouncements---that have changed and how it has affected HOW the Church teaches.
Dear LittleBear, And of
Dear LittleBear, And of course Sacred Scripture supports contraception and the words of Jesus Christ " Increase and multiply " mean absolutely nothing! How sad!
Where in the Bible does Jesus
Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ say to us "increase and multiply?"
tom warren on Jul. 26,
tom warren on Jul. 26, 2011.
You stated:
"Dear LittleBear, And of course Sacred Scripture supports contraception and the words of Jesus Christ " Increase and multiply " mean absolutely nothing! How sad!"
---------------------------------------
And sacred scripture also supported:
1) Selling children into slavery.
2) Slaughtering neighbors who did not worship as you did.
3) Families who sought revenge on others who knocked out teeth, eyes, etc.
by visiting them with the same evils.
You are a literalist, Tom. In America, we used to have large farming families, too. Part was based on what scripture stated. But mostly it was because many children could help with farming and household chores.
But the world is not the same today. Societies change. Today, try raising the 18 children who were in my father's boyhood family. Or try keeping children out in the fields all day---all year to work---and see what happens.
And where did Jesus say "Increase and multiply"?
"But sadly, they think...in
"But sadly, they think...in black and white."
Psychologist Wayne Dyer has noted that authoritarian personalities are prone to so-called "dichotomous thinking". They're attracted to power figures.
All of this kind of thinking reflects a basic fear of change. These people grasp for certainty.
Sad, indeed.
Hi, check out the committee
Hi, check out the committee on Humani Vitae and what was said and ignored. geesh.
It's interesting to note how
It's interesting to note how McBrien's notion of the church as a mystery coincides with Thomas Moore's notion of the soul as a mystery in traditional Christian circles of the Renaissance and before. The mystery of the soul and the work of the church as both cultivating the presence of God without defining it intellectually is a great antidote for partisan bickering and excessive narcissistic self-help going on right now. May we all learn to express God's love here on earth, even if we can't exactly define it at all times. I think a lot of the abortion, capital punishment, communion, etc. debate is because many people just can't stand gray areas. We need to learn to accept some of them.
John S
PDX OR
Would it not be appropriate
Would it not be appropriate for our bishops to order the denial of communion to those politicians who vote for measures injurious to the poor and disadvantaged?
Nope, because the government
Nope, because the government is not responsible for the care of the poor and vulnerable, it is up to each and every one of us. To shirk our duty to the poor and allow the government to take care of them is not what Christ called us to do.
Au contraire, The stature of
Au contraire,
The stature of a government is measured by the manner in which it treats the marginalized.
JR
Precisely where in the
Precisely where in the Gospels does Our Lord suggest that government should be the entity that cares for the poor? Precisely where does the Lord command that all His followers should institute governments that "rob from the rich and give to the poor"? Does not the Lord command each one of us to care for our neighbor ourselves?
As to your comment about the "stature of a government" being measured by the "manner in which it treats the marginalized", please cite the source for this comment. Is it from the United Nations, perhaps? Plato's Republic? The works of Hobbes or Locke? Jefferson or Adams?
Where in the United States Constitution is the power given the Federal Government to enact confiscatory taxation policies, effectively taking money from taxpayers via taxation and in turn giving that money, in the form of direct and indirect services, welfare, etc., to those who are "marginalized"? Just wondering...
Precisely where in the
Precisely where in the Gospels does Our Lord suggest that government should be the entity that cares for the poor? Precisely where does the Lord command that all His followers should institute governments that "rob from the rich and give to the poor"? Does not the Lord command each one of us to care for our neighbor ourselves?
As to your comment about the "stature of a government" being measured by the "manner in which it treats the marginalized", please cite the source for this comment. Is it from the United Nations, perhaps? Plato's Republic? The works of Hobbes or Locke? Jefferson or Adams?
Where in the United States Constitution is the power given the Federal Government to enact confiscatory taxation policies, effectively taking money from taxpayers via taxation and in turn giving that money, in the form of direct and indirect services, welfare, etc., to those who are "marginalized"? Just wondering...
"Precisely where in the
"Precisely where in the Gospels does Our Lord suggest that government should be the entity that cares for the poor?"
And "where in the Gospels", Mr. Green, "does Our Lord suggest that government should [NOT] be the entity that cares for the poor"?
I don't know about you, sir, but I don't have the wealth necessary to care for folks in need. And neither do my neighbors next door. Or the people next door to them.
On the other hand, we can pool our money to care for people in need. We can use tax receipts to cover their major expenses (ongoing medical care, meals for the homebound, etc.), and we can support private organizations that attempt to fill in the gaps that government cannot address (I use the word 'attempt' because these charities never have enough funds to cover the gaps).
Like you, I do not know the source of the comment about the "'stature of a government' being measured by the 'manner in which it treats the marginalized'." On the other hand, I subscribe to this belief because it reflects an essential truth, to wit, that we are expected --- somehow --- to help the less fortunate in whatever way we can. Unlike you, I suppose, I don't care if this basic truth was uttered by some great political philosopher of the past. Meeting human need is what counts.
As for any constitutional issues involved in federal taxation, you'll have to consult an expert in this area of the law. May I recommend President Obama?
Clint, you inspire and
Clint, you inspire and challenge and hearten me deeply to read you now sell all that you have and give the money to the poor, then to follow Jesus.
Such being the case, mon ami,
Such being the case, mon ami, you have more faith in Clint than I do :-) in light of his comments.
CWG on Jul. 19, 2011. You
CWG on Jul. 19, 2011.
You stated:
"Nope, because the government is not responsible for the care of the poor and vulnerable, it is up to each and every one of us. To shirk our duty to the poor and allow the government to take care of them is not what Christ called us to do."
-----------------------------------
Sorry, but you apparently have never studied the major tenets of Catholic social teaching concerning the need for those structures and institutions in cultures that can bring about a JUST SOCIETY. The most important institution is the political community, the government or as it is referred to in Catholic tradition---the "state."
All of my references to the social encyclicals and other papal documents will be from a collection of these encyclicals/documents from David J. O'Brien and Thomas J. Shannon, eds., "Catholic Social Thought: The Documentary Heritage" (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1992).
Leo XII's "Rerum novarum" (1981) confirmed the need for the state to intervene to protect workers and poor people. The first duty of the state "is to make sure that the laws and institution, the general character and administration of the commonwealth shall be such as to produce of themselves public well-being and private prosperity" (n. 26, O-S, p. 26).
In "Quadragesimo anno" (1931), Pius XI commented on "Rerum novarum", noting that Leo XII boldly and fearlessly proclaimed the doctrine that the civil power is more than the civil power is more than the mere guardian of law and order..." (n. 25, O-S, p. 47).
Catholic social teaching recognizes that the whole of Catholic tradition testifies to the social nature of human beings. Thomas Aquinas--who was shaped by the Christian tradition and by Aristoltelian philosophy---insisted that the human being is social and political by nature. In "Mater et magistra" (n. 219, O-S, p.120) and "Pacem in terris" (n. 23. O-S, p. 134) John XXIII repeats the older Thomistic and Catholic teaching that human beings are by nature social and that their governments must strive to achieve just societies for all.
In his encyclical "Populorum progressio" (n. 43, O-S, p. 250) and apostolic letter "Octogesima adveniens" (n. 12, O-S, p. 269) Paul VI uses the exclusive term "brotherhood" to explain the relationship of humans based on creation to their formed governments. John Paul II points out in "Centesimus annus" that in addition to the "brotherhood of all" Christian faith presents a new model of unity of the human race---in solidarity with their governments, a communion of all based on the supreme model of the communion of the Trinity with three persons in one God (n. 40, O-S, p. 423).
The Vatican II document, "Gaudium et spes" (1965) offers a theoretical view of the human person and in this context recognizes the natural, God-given character of the state:
'Human beings' social nature makes it evident that the progress of the
human person and the advance of society hinge on one another....This
social life is not something added on to the human being...Among those
social ties which the human being needs for one's own development, some,
like the family and political community, relate with greater immediacy
to one's innermost nature' (n. 25, O-S, p. 180).
Thus the Catholic view of the purpose of the state is that the state's role is to direct people to the common good and to their own good. With this in mind, I have to disagree with your comment, CWG, that the "government is not responsible for the care of the poor and vulnerable"---that individuals and the churches share the primary responsibility for dealing with the problem of poverty in our country. Everyone should admit that they have an role to play in helping the poor. But the problem is so vast that individuals, churches, and voluntary association alone cannot solve it. The government must become involved.
When the government becomes involved, however, it should not do away with intermediate and association such as churches that also do what they can to help poor people and the vulnerable. Today, for example, groups such as the Lutheran Social Service and Catholic Charities receive about two-thirds of their budgets from government funds. If they are willing to help all people regardless of race, creed, or color, the government is willing to fund them to help them work with the poor and vulnerable. "The govenment does not try to do away with mediating institutions shuch as churches; it uses them precisely because mediating institutions are closer to the grassroots level and can deal effectively with some aspects of the problem of poverty." {Fred Krammer, "Public-Religious Partnerships." 'America 184, no. 11 (April 2, 2001) 6-10}.
Thank God Little Bear brings
Thank God Little Bear brings thoughtful and well-cited replies based upon scholarly research to what from me provokes merely cranky knee jerk reactions
"...[T]he government is not
"...[T]he government is not responsible for the care of the poor and vulnerable, it is up to each and every one of us."
Government of the people, by the people, and *for* the people.
Which part do you not understand, Mr. Green?
The part that I do not
The part that I do not understand is wherein the right and the power of the Federal Government to enact confiscatory taxation policies exists. The Federal Government seems all about taking from those who produce and giving to those who do not. In so doing, it punishes success and hard work on the one hand, and on the other creates a permanent dependent class.
In nearly 80 years of social welfare programs, has the Government managed to alleviate poverty? Are there fewer poor people in America today than there were in 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970? Where is the success story?
How is it that billions upon billions of dollars are taken from taxpayers each year, and spent in turn on welfare programs, social benefits and entitlement programs, etc., and yet, poverty does not seem to be alleviated? How is it that with all this confiscated wealth, the poor are still dependent upon private individuals and charities to provide shelter, clothing, food, etc.?
Why not call this social experiment the failure that it is, and end this confiscatory taxation? Why not allow American taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money, in turn allowing them to be more generous to the agencies and organizations that actually work, that actually tend to the needs of the poor and the vulnerable?
The poor represent a serious problem in America. Yet, it is clear that the government is either incapable or unwilling to solve that problem, despite the confiscation of untold wealth from those who work hard and whose work directly benefits society. Given this, it seems clear that if you are even remotely interested in the good of the poor and vulnerable, the answer is to remove the Federal Government from the equation and empower the individuals in society to care for their neighbors the way Christ intended.
You ask a lot of good
You ask a lot of good questions, Mr. Green.
For which I have no answers.
Except one:
"The poor you will always have with you..." (Mt 26:11)
As for what "Christ intended" in terms of helping the poor, I don't recall the Lord specifying any particular venue for addressing the task at hand. Jesus obviously left the matter open-ended.
You'll never convince me that the American people can adequately meet the needs of the poor, the sick, and the elderly without government involvement.
We live in a "consumerist" society: It's all about "ME".
"We the People of the United
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons, as opposed to protecting the interests of a narrow section or class of the population, encapsulates what is most unique about the United States of America--that it is the only modern nation-state republic founded on this principle.
It is most difficult, as a
It is most difficult, as a Vatican !!, RCIA new member, to begin to accept what is happening now to the Institution of the Church. Yes, I know that a church is finite and God is infinite - but changes being made are destructive to the integrity of my soul. Maybe I am the only one, probably unlikely, but you have lost me.
Get real. The Church is the
Get real. The Church is the Vatican, a medieval absolute monarchy and a modern top-down corporation. Theology matters only in so far as it supports Vatican absolutism and distracts from Vatican misrule. The Vatican and its petty princes always win.
The Church as the Mystical
The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ comprises all the Faithful. Even American bishops have responded to the needs of the Faithful by tempering the absolutism of Rome's antiquated doctrines on birth control, and by permitting Catholics to follow the dictates of their own consciences even when these diverge from the misguided fundamentalism of a few feudal hierarchical leaders in Rome.
a miracle anyone comes to
a miracle anyone comes to Mass. Each person who comes to Mass is a miracle of the Divine Presence, and must not be turned away for any reason whatsoever.
even a soldier, surely come in repentance for cowardly killing and seeking forgiveness and new life, seeking sanctuary for desertion, rather than the desperate suicide now consuming a disproportionate amount of the immoral US military.
No one can be turned away, even the President of the United States.
A miracle anyone comes. See also Our Holy Father Saint Benedict in the Rule for Monks on how visitors are received as Jesus.
Having worked with veterans,
Having worked with veterans, I have to challenge the way and the words you used, specifically in your post: "even" a soldier, "surely" come in repentance of "cowardly" killing and seeking forgiveness and new life. If you are really serious about your concern for so many soldiers committing suicide then it would be really helpful to choose your words carefully. Referring to the "immoral U. S. Military" is another example....You just can't make such a general statement. You, me, none of us know why and for what reason someone is seeking when they come to Mass, whether it is a soldier, or anyone else.
“It is therefore by its
“It is therefore by its conduct and by its life that the Church will evangelize the world, in other words, by its living witness of fidelity to the Lord Jesus–the witness of poverty and detachment, of freedom in the face of the powers of this world, in short, the witness of sanctity” (n. 41).
"Those who insist on their role as teachers of the Church must take to heart those words of Paul VI. Their teaching is empty if it is not accompanied by a clear and compelling witness to the Gospel itself".
Faith is not transmitted by empty words but by the integrity of those who share with us the values and principles which guide their life each day. If words are contradicted by their actions, as has happenned with so many members of the hierarchy, in Boston, Philadelphia, Dublin, Cork, Munich, Rome and around the world, what is transmitted is not faith but pretence. Faith exists in the faithful in the parish, in the local church, in the daily lives of many priests but is missing in the lavish ceremonials, verbose pronouncements and self-seeking promotions of many publicity hounds at higher levels in Church organizations.
The true vocation of priest or bishop is to SERVE not to govern or judge his people. The teaching authority of the Church and the Pope is designed to provide the principles which enable US to make moral decisions, not to micromanage our lives.
The efforts to reform the
The efforts to reform the reform have left us with few prophetic voices to listen to these days. How welcome and fresh is the honesty and candor of one so esteemed as Richard McBrien. I look forward to what he will say in the coming essays. Can he help those of us who find the notion of a reform of the reform to be a sin against the spirit, to have a more effective and forceful voice in what often seems like a one sided conversation?
Thank you Fr. McBrien, I
Thank you Fr. McBrien, I look forward to the rest of your articles.
In Christ,
Sr. Sharon
Thanks again Padre for your
Thanks again Padre for your straightforward, self-critical, and compassionate words related to the sacramental mystery of the Church(If we cannot criticize the institutional representatives who supposedly represent us, than we live and pray in an idolatrous universe called The Roman Empire). But if we can question, critique, and challenge the hierarchy (as Paul did of Peter...en Christo...as Jesus did of you-name-it...then we are Church. What did Jesus say again?...to paraphrase...if that's okay in the dot-your-i's-and-cross-your-t's materialistic interpretation of so many things that so many ordinary human beings seem to want to control and confine in some time-warped and trapped Jesus of their cultural likening and addiction...?
'You will do greater things than me....'
Jesus embodied Christological evolution.
Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again...and again...and again...and again. In everything we can imagine. Or cannot imagine.
It is a power and momentum that cannot be stopped. Not by any religion or any temporal and illusory confinement of words, text, ritual, or tradition.
If tradition doesn't lead to easier breathing in Christ...then it only leads to its own self-protection. If Christ doesn't include everything and everyone and every sentient being and every created thing...to borrow a little from our Buddhist siblings...than Christ has only died. He's not risen. And he's not coming back. Ever again. Because he is now a dead christ made in the image of whichever humans are in control of the message.
Only the institutional and fearful versions of christ will show up on your screen. And unfortunately, there will be more burning at the stakes of hypocrisy, fear, idolatry, and tribalism.
Peace to all of us,
In Christ. As much as we can be there.
The Mikester
“It is therefore by its
“It is therefore by its conduct and by its life that the Church will evangelize the world, in other words, by its living witness of fidelity to the Lord Jesus–the witness of poverty and detachment, of freedom in the face of the powers of this world, in short, the witness of sanctity”
of poverty
not of wealthy marcialite simoniacs
and myriad more
of freedom
in the face of legions of bishops who have lost their way and would lose ours
come to the desert
to the Spanish Mass
Vos sos el Dios de los pobres
El Dios humano y sencillo
El Dios que suda en la calle
El Dios de rostro curtido.
Por eso es que te hablo yo
Así como te habla mi pueblo
Porque sos el Dios obrero
El Cristo trabajador
Vos vas de la mano con mi gente
Luchás en el campo y la ciudad
Hacés fila allá en el campomento
Para que te paguen tu jornal.
Vos comés raspado allá en el parque
con Eusebio, Poncho y Juan José
Y hasta protestás por el cirope
Cuando no te le echan mucho miel.
Vos sos el Dios de los pobres...
Yo te he visto en uno pulpería
instalado en un caramanchel.
Te he visto vendiendo lotería
sin que te avergüence ese papel.
Yo te he visto en las gasolineras
Chequeando los llantas de un camión
Y hasta patroleando carreteras
con guantes de cuero y overol.
Vos sos el Dios de los pobres...
Learn Spanish if you're going
Learn Spanish if you're going to the Spanish Mass. Maybe the reason you can't follow the bishops is because you speak Spanish so poorly. No seas burro, hermano.
Marta, this is Nicaraguan,
Marta, this is Nicaraguan, which employs the archaic vos form, as in Argentina, with a great addition of local slang, this being here an unattributed song of Carlos Mejia Godoy, the great Nicaraguan composer, which I sing weekly at least at the Misa Campesina in Padre Uriel Molina's Mass and elsewhere.
I do regret I could only access a very corrupted text of the song from the University of Philadelphia website, and thought I had corrected most of the typos, only to discover several more near the end. Kindly let me leave further corrections here. I rushed to upload to celebrate the anniversary of the victory of the Nicaragua Revolution which immediately through Padre Fernando Cardenal SJ brought literacy throughout the nation long left purposefully illiterate by the long US supported Somozan dynasty
After this I learned Puerto Rican (BORICUA!) and now Mexican usages (pos, que no seas tan gacha, güey).
Vos sos el Dios de los pobres
El Dios humano y sencillo
El Dios que suda en la calle
El Dios de rostro curtido.
Por eso es que te hablo yo
Así como te habla mi pueblo
Porque sos el Dios obrero
El Cristo trabajador
Vos vas de la mano con mi gente
Luchás en el campo y la ciudad
Hacés fila allá en el campomento
Para que te paguen tu jornal.
Vos comés raspado allá en el parque
con Eusebio, Poncho y Juan José
Y hasta protestás por el cirope
Cuando no te le echan mucho miel.
Vos sos el Dios de los pobres...
Yo te he visto en un pulpería
instalado en un caramanchel.
Te he visto vendiendo lotería
sin que te avergüence ese papel.
Yo te he visto en las gasolineras
Chequeando los llantas de un camión
Y hasta patroleando carreteras
con guantes de cuero y overol.
Vos sos el Dios de los pobres...
I cannot follow the US
I cannot follow the US bishops because they proclaim the Gospel so poorly. In Ciudad Juarez, where the Bishop still stands with the poor, I follow what he says, in Spanish.
And I see this:
http://www.nuestramirada.org/photo/photo/slideshow?albumId=2072012:Album...
Dear Father McBrien,Thank
Dear Father McBrien,Thank you! You speak to my soul.It is so wonderful to connect with another human being who feels as I do,who thinks as I do.You are a lesson in courage to the laity and especially to the clergy in the church today!May we all develop your gumption!
Father, The beauty of your
Father, The beauty of your essay was vitiated today by Ratzinger's appointment of Chaput to Philadelphia. Do you really believe Christ has anything left to do with the Roman Church?
Fr, it seems to me that there
Fr, it seems to me that there are two very distinct issues that are confused.
1) First is the need of honest Church governance, where leaders lead by example, rather than talk. In the advent of the latest Irish scandal, this is clearly still missing. The recent John Jay report is an othe example, where data and definitions were twisted. Without making any changes to the Magisterium, there is a clear need of honesty in leadership. When and how is this going to happen? As long as this is not happening, this not only jeopardizes the safety of Church members, including physical security in places like China, because the Churches voice is now weakened, but also religious freedom in general.
2) Then there all the people pushing their little agendas in the wake of the current mess. On the right we have business oligarch supported pseudo orthodoxies that try to make “holiness” into a marketable commodity (those are favored by the current leadership). On the left, it’s not much better, with the priority being the “rights” of aging hippies to use nascent humans as their body parts, or for the absolute supremacy for their “adult right” to use bellow the belt organs as they choose, even it means ending the life of a child in the womb of hise/her mother.
I would propose that we concentrate efforts on 1).
Pax.
Thank you, Father
Thank you, Father McBrien,
This article brought back the amazing spirit of Vatican II. But, the article saddens me because those of us who accept Vatican II are stuck with an hierarchical leadership that does all within its POWER to suppress the teachings of Vatican II. I agree with your following atatement. "It is more than appropriate during a time such as this to be sure that we embrace anew each of the ecclesiological contours of Vatican II’s teachings."
What are we to do as laity who want this kind of Church?
Stevie you have it backwards.
Stevie you have it backwards. Those leaders you criticize are following the authentic teachings of Vatican II. People like McBrien simply do what they want and call it the "spirit of Vatican II." You will find that most who invoke "the spirit of Vatican II" have not read one word of any of the documents and simply use the spirit of the 60s to justify their agenda.
Some backgrounder for
Some backgrounder for "Anonymous":
a. Avery Dulles. "Vatican II: The Myth and the Reality". AMERICA (2/24/03) at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2810.
b. John O'Malley. "The Style of Vatican II". AMERICA (2/24/03) at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2812.
c. John O'Malley. "Vatican II: Official Norms". AMERICA (3/31/03) at http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2883.
anonymous, demonstrate this
anonymous, demonstrate this with specific references:
"People like McBrien simply do what they want and call it the "spirit of Vatican II." You will find that most who invoke "the spirit of Vatican II" have not read one word of any of the documents and simply use the spirit of the 60s to justify their agenda."
For specific references,
For specific references, please consult the vast majority of the comments and articles on the NCR website.
Anonymous on Jul. 24,
Anonymous on Jul. 24, 2011.
You stated:
"For specific references, please consult the vast majority of the comments and articles on the NCR website."
----------------------------------------------
When you speak of people trying to push their version of what happened at Vatican II (and refering to the vast majority of the comments and articles on the NCR website to support your contention), I wonder if you even know what happened at Vatican Council II?
1) Seriously, do you know that there are books that document each and every
session that occured at Vatican II with commentaries along with it?
2) Do you know what Pope John XXIII stated in his opening address of the
Council and why he felt inspired to call it?
3) Do you understand that each of the documents are filled with sections,
phrases, and whole theological thoughts that beg for a "Midrashic"
approach to understanding it? {Midrashic---meaning a method of commenting
on writings by comparing them with other sections of the same text or with
other similar material}? And we were all invited to read, contemplate, and
discuss the material. It is not just for popes, the curia, national
councils of bishops, dioceses or the priests. All of us were invited to
do so---by the Council itself.
4) Here's just ONE example of what I mean (from chapter two from the "Decree
on Ecumenism" {Unitatis Redintegratio}:
"Christ summons the Church as she goes her pilgrim way to that continual
reformation of which she always has need insofar as she is an institution
of humans here on earth.
Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to
deficiencies in conduct, in church discipline, or even in the language of
its doctrine (which must be carefully distinguished from the deposit of
Faith), these should be appropriately corrected when the time is right to
do so."
5) Reflection and discussion on this one passage alone could last a few
generations. And the sad concept is that we have too many in the
Church that have been running from this concept, and trying to turn back
the clock to when the Church was too arrogant to even ADMIT that it is in
error---never mind opening up to conversion/reformatiom, discussing it
openly and bringing about the changes needed. An example of this is
the sexual abuse crisis within the Church---in the US, in Ireland, in
Spain, in Austria, in Canada, in Australia and in parts of Africa and
India. And Latin America has yet to open its hidden wounds to the
fresh air.
Therefore, rather than point out NCR bloggers as seeing MORE into Vatican Council II than what is there---look at the others who are too blind or frightened to see ALL that we have been empowered to think, say and do, because of the Council.
To be Catholic it seems that
To be Catholic it seems that more and more of us have to seek Christ as Nicodemus. He came to Christ in the middle of the night because his position with the Jewish religious establishment. Since many of us do not trust the Catholic religious establishment, we are forced to seek Christ in other places. There are prayer communities where this is possible but it takes investigation and alertness to find them. Just going to the closest church is not always an option. The less devout just quit going. Some are CEO Catholics -Christmas and Easter Only.
Being a living example is everything. Telling people to do as I say and not as I do never works.
We could end up with many churches underground in people's homes. Much like it was before the Edict of Milan.
I am always uneasy when I see or hear of palaces or mansions for cardinals or bishops. (That also goes for helicopters, fancy limousines and luxury suites inside of cathedrals.) I also feel very uneasy with the stories coming from Jason Berry's new book, "Render Unto Rome." concerning the flow of cash into the Vatican and the Curia.
One would hope that this
One would hope that this essay of Fr. McBrien's would provide a definitive answer - at least in part - to the question of some contributors here who ask what is "the Spirit of Vatican II."
Vatican II= authentic
Vatican II= authentic teaching of the Church
"spirit of Vatican II" = made up practice and theology for those who want to be their own pope and do whatever they want and have likely never read any words of the actual council. Most people who use the words "spirit of Vatican II" have never read the documents and support infant murder, contraception, homosexuality, and are likely collecting social security.
The Spirit of Vatican II =
The Spirit of Vatican II = Holy Spirit of Love, in particular for the poor, the forgotten, the enemy, the rejected, the unloved, the denied, the unloveable, the unforgiven, the unforgiveable, for Lazarus at the gate, a Good Samaritan love.
The Love to which Jesus commands us
merciful, compassionate, all self giving, the Love who is God.
The Holy Spirit.
the love of which I am incapable.
Richard, you have always
Richard, you have always stood in my mind one of the great explicators of difficult theological topics in simple language. And you are quite correct in what you say about the church (people): "presence of christ in the world, not just an organization."
However, just as many of us individuals do from time to time (and I include myself here), the Church (hierarchy) is standing in the way of the presence of God/Christ being made manifest in the world. Every day I hear real anger about the Church - really these people mean the hierarchy, and the hierarchy deserves every comment.
About 10 years ago, I finally realized that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT God, however much it has tried to embue itself with the qualities of divinity in order to infanitlize and control the minds, hearts and souls of the people who really are "the church." Most of us spend our lives trying to follow our consciences, which the hierarchy says we must do. Then they condemn us for doing exactly that.
I have just a slight glimmer of understanding what a heavy burden it is to attempt to shepherd this gargantual institution. But the hierarchy could learn a lot if they stopped prancing around in expensive designer vestments and really listened to the people in whom God really does live and act for the world - which are primarily the poor.
I am fed up with the hypocrisy of the hierarchy - and sadly, there are many good bishops who must bear the burden of their brothers sins.
You are right on
You are right on target,Father. I feel betrayed by the church by the
way it has turned its back on the
documents of Vatican II.What is wrong with our
Leadership? Do they have their heads in the sand? We are losing very devoted, long practicing Catholics by the thousands, and no bishop seems to be asking why.The backward move to the past is most discouraging. What we need today is another Pope like John XXIII.S
Sister, perhaps you may want
Sister, perhaps you may want to go back and read those documents again. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are very faithful to those documents. Most things you read in the NCR have no clue what the Council said.
so easily said anonymously,
so easily said anonymously, devoid thus of any need to prove, with, you know, actual evidence and citations, and completely opposite the learned assessments of scholars of our churhc history. But when has the mere truth, or forebearance, or humility, or shame, ever delayed your anonymous typing?
See for one the study entitled
Report on the Church: Catholicism After Vatican II
As for NCR, review the work of learned correspondents such as Penny Lernoux, Peter Hebblethwaite, Gary MacEoin, and then come into the modern age of NCR with John Allen, and the rest, and then back up your hollow and vicious and mistakenly unsupportable claim that "Most things you read in the NCR have no clue what the Council said."
Prove it.
Charles, many people have
Charles, many people have said it here before and I repeat it again. You prove the point. When asked to quote the Council you, and many others, constantly quote people's commentaries. Please look to the actual documents themselves. Why is it that McBrien and almost every other article and comment about Vatican II on this website is devoid of any actual words of the Council--A council at which both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were involved with?
Just one simple exercise: Please read Lumen Gentium again, especially paragraph 25. Then read every NCR editorial and every McBrien column and tell me just where Vatican II is applied. Sadly you will find both McBrien and the editorials calling the faithful to something that is the complete opposite of what the Council said.
Many who comment, yourself included, railed against the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity that was asked of anyone involved with the Visitation of Women Religious. You, the NCR as a whole, called it against the "spirit of Vatican II." However, the words of the oath were WORD FOR WORD the exact words of Lumen Gentium!
Was not NCR's Hebblethwaite
Was not NCR's Hebblethwaite THERE?
Anonymous on Jul. 20,
Anonymous on Jul. 20, 2011.
You stated:
"Sister, perhaps you may want to go back and read those documents again. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are very faithful to those documents. Most things you read in the NCR have no clue what the Council said."
----------------------------------------------
And have you read the encyclicals, and pastoral letters where the constitutions and decrees were further developed? Are you aware of the work of the various commissions that were begun under the direction of Pope Paul VI to implement the recommendations? Are you aware of the Action-Direction statements that came to all the bishops following the Council.
As far as JP II and Benedict are concerned---they were/are NOT faithful to following the directive of Vatican Council II. JP II published his own personal interpretation of Vatican II {"Sources of Renewal: the Implementation of Vatican II, 1979}. John Paul II enforced HIS own ideas:
1) "Personalism" and "phenomenology" provide the language to translate
Thomistic philosophy---the "only solid philosophy". This quote came from
JP II's dissertation for his doctor's degree in Poland.
2) JP II interpreted the Council from a narrow perspective---that the clergy
(Pope, Curia, cardinals, arch/bishops and finally the priests) are in
charge of the church and that the laity should keep out.
3) JP II favored secret societies like Opus Dei and the rest, because of
their strong allegiance of support to him. He supported those areas
where youth were attracted to the church---Africa, India, and Poland,
where they were able to fill up the seminaries---because for young men
that was a way to rise on the social elevator.
4) The life style of the hierarchy and their concepts of themselves WERE
under JP II and has continued with Benedict---the belief that they are
PRINCES.
It is a remnant of a medieval caste system. Both of these popes were/are
class-conscious and elitist. They live, act, and encourage their
bishops to be aristocrats. That was one of the reasons that JP II
scolded Oscar Romero so much. He told him to "Listen to the rich
families (many of whom were Opus Dei members). What are you doing with
all of these connections with the poor?" This was and is a direct
contradiction with the message of Jesus Christ----who identified with
the poor to the day of his death.
Many of the people who write on NCR not only have read the documents of Vatican II, but teach the document---and try to live their Catholic lives as directed by the documents.
Dear Sr. Barbara Walsh, Who
Dear Sr. Barbara Walsh, Who exactly is turning their backs on Vatican II and what exactly are they turning their backs on? All of the decisions that came out of Vatican II were implemented more than forty years ago and yet we have so many expecting changes in Catholic Doctrine. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that any whimsical desire one may have does not constitute reson for change. Millions of Catholics have left the Catholic Church because they do not believe in Love, Obedience, and TRUTH. When Moses came down from the mountain, what did he witness? Isn't the same thing taking place today? Vatican II has long ended. Shouldn't we all get on with our lives?
tom warren on Jul. 26, 2011.
tom warren on Jul. 26, 2011.
You stated:
"Dear Sr. Barbara Walsh, Who exactly is turning their backs on Vatican II and what exactly are they turning their backs on? All of the decisions that came out of Vatican II were implemented more than forty years ago and yet we have so many expecting changes in Catholic Doctrine. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that any whimsical desire one may have does not constitute reson for change. Millions of Catholics have left the Catholic Church because they do not believe in Love, Obedience, and TRUTH. When Moses came down from the mountain, what did he witness? Isn't the same thing taking place today? Vatican II has long ended. Shouldn't we all get on with our lives?"
-----------------------------------
1) Sr. Barbara Walsh DID NOT respond to you----I did!
2) All the directives of Vatican II HAVE NOT been put into practice 40 years ago. Vatican II instigated the changes that were to be ON-GOING down through the decades. Vatican II was trying to remove the "fortress mentality" of the Church and replace it with 'dialogue' with governments, other religions, other faiths, with the world in general.
3) When John Paul II became Pope---his first words to the crowds was "Do not be afraid." But he was very frightened. He was from a Communist country. But he was comfortable with it. On one hand---he worked hard to break the Communist system in Poland and else where. And he certainly deserves credit
for his hard work there.
But JP II and Benedict---had/have not grasped the concept that THEY are to model for people of TODAY---the Gospel message of Christ. Instead, they were/are caught up in the church of their youth (because it is COMFORTABLE) for them. And that is why they are going back to a stance that would put the Church in a state of 'rigor mortis'.
When our country was beginning, our governmental leaders wrote a document called the Constitutions. It wasn't just a document that today we look at and then say, "Ok, it was written long ago. Now, let's get on with our lives." Just as the Constitution framed how our country was to exist, and govern its citizens, so Vatican Council II was called to set a framework for how the Church was to BEGIN to deal with a world that had moved and changed rapidly from the time of Vatican I and the even earlier Council of Trent.
Our Church CANNOT continue to bring the Gospel message of Christ to people of today, by trying to model a Church of the past. Christ's message is eternal---but the earthly Church exists in a definite time frame in history.
As far as your comment about Moses---It was God who was leading the people. God directed Moses. Moses became upset with the people many times---but God's promise and love endured after the death of Moses.
Your comment about millions of Catholics leaving the Church because they do not believe in love, obedience, and TRUTH is not accurate. I believe that there are some Catholics who would leave the Church even if Jesus Christ was standing right in front of them offering his love to them.
But the vast majority of Catholics have left because they have NOT SEEN either Love or Truth coming from the "official Church"----from the Popes on down to their priests. They don't care WHAT the Church says---They want to SEE the Church practice what it preaches. They want to SEE the hierarchy live the simple life-style like Jesus lived. They want to SEE the hierarchy concern itself with hands-on care of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the children-----not just by sending others out to do it. And they want to SEE and hear the Church speak and act JUSTLY. It should be as transparent as possible.
And as far as obedience is concerned---yes, there is a need for some. But obedience is highly over-rated. It's what one imposes if one has three or more yelling, running children in the house. Educated adults DO NOT expect nor will they tolerate being treated like children. But that is exactly HOW the "official church" treats the laity---and even priests and often bishops. People today will not put up with a Church that operates like an absolutist monarchy---or worse, that operates like a dictatorship.
Interesting that McBrien
Interesting that McBrien accuses the bishops of not witnessing to the Gospel, when it's his brother priests who have been doing all the raping. If bishops were really the problem, there would be no child molesting in religious orders, whose superiors are not named by Rome. And, of course, we wouldn't have the hundreds of cases of molestation by women religious. Once again, McBrien's main problem with bishops is that he thinks he should be one.
A bishop governs a diocese.
A bishop governs a diocese. Religious order clergy work in a diocese with a bishop's permission.
The bishops hid clerical sexual abuse. They intimidated abuse victims --- if the victims were not ignored altogether. Bishops enforced secrecy. Bishops transferred clerical perverts to other parishes or arranged for their transfer to other dioceses. Bishops did whatever was necessary "to protect Holy Mother Church from scandal".
Why in God's name would McBrien want to be a bishop???????
Post new comment