The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Bishop decries 'combative tactics' of a minority of U.S. bishops
'Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country.'
Aug. 26, 2009
Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionAlbuquerque, NM
A majority of U.S. bishops disagree with the loud tactics of some of their peers in opposing President Barack Obama’s May appearance at the University of Notre Dame, but remain silent because they do not want to engage in a public battle over the issue, according to Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, NM.
In an Aug. 12 interview at archdiocesan headquarters here with NCR, Sheehan took the opportunity to decry the combative tactics of what he described as a minority of U.S. bishops who spoke out against the university’s invitation and issuance of an honorary degree. Many urged the university to rescind the invitation because of Obama’s opposition to criminalizing abortion.
Sheehan said he spoke out strongly against the strategy during the bishops’ meeting in June in San Antonio. According to reports from NCR’s John Allen at the time, some bishops said privately that they were appalled at the conduct of the most vocal opponents and others said the debate had become too narrow and partisan, but the issue was never brought up in public session. The bishops interviewed at the time commented anonymously.
In the Aug. 12 interview, Sheehan said the Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country and that refusing to talk to a politician or refusing communion because of a difference on a single issue was counterproductive. He described such actions as a “hysterical” reaction.
The comments came in the course of an interview on a range of other topics, most of which will appear in subsequent stories in the ongoing series, In Search of the Emerging Church.
The archbishop was forceful in describing the manner in which church leaders should handle significant disagreements with elected officials. He said his approach – whether dealing with civic officials or church members, relied heavily on collaboration, a technique he said he learned from the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago.
“I believe in collaboration,” he said. “I worked under Cardinal Bernardin and he taught me how to collaborate, how to consult. So I am very committed to the concept called shared responsibility. I think involving people in the process all the way along – my priests, my lay people, I am open to talking to them, working with them. Consultation, collaboration, building bridges not burning them. And you can get so much done when you have collaboration and you build the bridge with other people, whether it’s priests or laypeople, deacons, whoever.”
Bernardin had a reputation as a reconciling force within the bishops’ conference and was often called on to oversee mediation efforts in disagreements within the conference or between U.S. bishops and Rome. He also founded the Common Ground Initiative just before he died. It was an effort to establish a means for Catholics to discuss differences in a civil manner.
Sheehan said that in June he told his fellow bishops, “I don’t feel so badly about Obama going [to Notre Dame] because he’s our president. I said we’ve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty for New Mexico, which he was in favor of.”
Gov. Bill Richardson, in explaining why he reversed his long-standing support for the death penalty, said he was persuaded in part by discussions with church activists and with Sheehan.
“We talked to him, and we got him on board and got the support in the legislature,” Sheehan said. “But you know, he’s pro-abortion. So? It doesn’t mean we sit and wait, that we sit on the sides and not talk to him. We’ve done so much more by consultation and by building bridges in those areas. And then to make a big scene about Obama – I think a lot of the enemies of the church are delighted to see all that. And I said that I think we don’t want to isolate ourselves from the rest of America by our strong views on abortion and the other things. We need to be building bridges, not burning them.”
Asked if there were any other bishops who agreed with him, he said, “Of course, the majority.”
He was asked why none of the bishops who disagreed with the protests that dominated the news for weeks had spoken up.
“The bishops don’t want to have a battle in public with each other, but I think the majority of bishops in the country didn’t join in with that, would not be in agreement with that approach. It’s well intentioned, but we don’t lose our dignity by being strong in the belief that we have but also talking to others that don’t have our belief. We don’t lose our dignity by that,” he said.
“We’d be like the Amish, you know, kind of isolated from society, if we kept pulling back because of a single issue.”
He acknowledged the loudest voices were creating what appeared to be the Catholic position for the general public.
“Of course. I mean that’s always been the case,” he said. “That’s news, you know.”
He said that in speaking to the other bishops he wondered aloud what was so bad about inviting Obama and giving him a degree. “Last month,” said Sheehan, “the pope made the president of France an honorary canon of St. John Lateran’s -- and he [President Nicolas Sarkozy] is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, married invalidly to an actress, and the pope did that. It doesn’t seem that [the Vatican] had quite as big a concern about this matter of Obama and Notre Dame as some of us.”
Noting that the Vatican has consistently been more positive about Obama than some of the leading critics among the U.S. bishops, Sheehan said, “The Vatican is a little more diplomatically sensitive. But you’ve got to have the big picture.”
He also said given Obama’s association as a young man with priests and nuns during his time as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side that the “issues of social justice that we teach and preach would resonate in his own work and in his own mind.”
If Sheehan disagreed with the tactics of some of his fellow bishops, he believes at least that Obama may have “a greater awareness now of how passionately and how deeply the church people feel” about abortion. “I think he probably had to come to grips with it in a way that, I suspect, has had a positive effect.”
He said the bishops might revisit a controversial statement on Catholic politicians but he said he opposes withholding communion based partly on the church’s own historic experience. Making reference to Giuseppi Garibaldi, who campaigned to unify Italy in the mid 1800s and who advocated abolition of the papacy, Sheehan said the church then said Catholics would be excommunicated or refused communion if they voted for him. “Well, it didn’t work.”
“Using sanctions – you have to be very careful about doing that.” He said he was cautioned in seminary to be very careful when even considering refusing communion to someone. “And I’ve had occasions where I was wondering whether I should give communion to this person who had been in a quote bad marriage. I gave him communion and after Mass he came up to me and said Archbishop, I have such good news. Our marriage case was settled.” With a bit of emotion, Sheehan said, “And if I would have refused him communion.
“You have to be very careful. The Vatican doesn’t do these big sanctions, you’re out of the church if you vote this way. They’ve tried it, it doesn’t work, and I try to learn from what the Vatican has to teach and to use that myself,” he said. “The primary responsibility for someone receiving communion is the person himself or herself and their conscience, to come forward to receive. The priest shouldn’t be like a watchdog, looking around and finding out who’s unworthy.”
Asked if he was concerned about reaction from those who seemed to consider opposition to Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame or refusing communion to a politician who differed from the church’s view on abortion strategy as proof of orthodox Catholicism, he responded:
“I seek to teach, to teach, and not to use sanctions. To teach, to talk to people. Like I say, we got more done this year with the state legislature by connecting with people and by saying our piece in a hopefully reasonable, and not an emotional and hysterical, way. Hysterical activity doesn’t bear fruit, and there’s been some hysteria in these areas.”
Roberts is NCR editor at large.
Notre Dame hasn't been an
Notre Dame hasn't been an issue for months. Why is he bringing it up now? To show that "we're not all like that"?
Dennism - This was an
Dennism - This was an interview. NCR most likely raised the question.
Dennism - Does our very short news cycle determine what is appropriate for discussion, for reflection?
And, yes, Dennism, I expect that he did desire to communicate that all Bishops are "not like that". Aren't you relieved? I am.
Dear Anonymous: Your reply
Dear Anonymous: Your reply should have been directed to "dennisn", not "dennism". But what the hay, there is not much to distinguish all the "anonymi" either.
Desperately seeking media
Desperately seeking media attention Bishop John D'Arcy of South Bend-Ft. Wayne thrust the ND O'Drama into the spotlight again with his recent excuse-laden editorial on "why I did what I did...." in this week's Aug. 31 AMERICA magazine. I guess he's got nothing better to do....
Luckily the same issue contains an excellent reflection on "The Public Duty of Bishops: Lessons from the Storm in South Bend" by Archbishop Emeritus John Quinn of San Francisco. Definitely worth a read, and certainly even more outstanding when placed next to D'Arcy's lightweight fluff.
Honesty requires me to first
Honesty requires me to first acknowledge that I have not read the America column by Bishop D'Arcy so I can only speak from my experience as a ND graduate '58, +20 year member of the FTW/SoBend (in our part of the country we don't abbreviate ND's Mother Town any further) diocese and one who has on a few occasions written to the bishop and to the local newspaper expressing my displeasure with actions by Bishop D'Arcy. (one long sentence but ...)
What choice did Bishop D'Arcy have except to speak out?
(I read back over what I wrote following this question and it may seem to some that I am in some way condemning him for speaking out. I don't.
"Other' bishops were 'making a name for themselves' by butting in but the local Ordinary had no choice. For those who do not know Bishop D'Arcy is not 'bucking for a promotion.' He is due to retire this year.)
I am disappointed that he was not forceful enough (personal gut feeling) in disassociating himself and the Catholic Church from the Terry Circus. His actions in this area were sort of like saying, "Just say no." Perfunctory and not very convincing.
I wrote him a letter suggesting that he work with Fr. Jenkins and Terry to allow on-campus demonstrations the week-end prior to graduation week so as to make the graduation experience as pleasant as possible for the graduates and their families. Did he get my letter or was it 'short-stopped' by some functionary? Who knows - I just know I did not get any response - and as all of you know - nothing was done.
So some students/and their families were forced into choosing to attend their graduation or missing one of their most significantt days of their 'early' lives. Anyone under 65 is 'early' to me.
The bishop has been a frequent supporter of ND in 'his' newspaper but not strongly enough in the local newspapers. The last time he wrote strongly was to condemn ND for the sponsorship of the Vagina Chronicals.
So - Did Bishop D'Arcy really have a choice?
I read both articles in the
I read both articles in the current issue of AMERICA. Bishop D"Arcy's is simplistic and his thinking is regressive. It is unfortunate that Bishops do not emulate Cardinal Bernadin.
D'Arcy was the one who acted
D'Arcy was the one who acted like a real bishop. He did as much as he could but that is not enough! The bishops in America are the ones responsible for the loss of our universities to secularism. That is the real issue here. I should say the bishops who were around at the time of the Land O'Lakes accord which sold out the Catholicism of our colleges & universities, not all the bishops today. It is not too late to reverse that decision. The colleges need to be under the control of the local ordinary and the universities need to be under the control of the Vatican. Then the gay & abortion rights clubs at the "Catholic" colleges like ND can be disbanded. Fr Jenkins of ND who allowed the filthy V-Monolgues to play at ND before he invited Mr Abortion to speak at his university can be fired and sent to work in a ghetto parish.
The time is long past due for the Second Counter Reformation to begin in what is left of the Catholic Church. JPII was conservative but he lacked the backbone to take a flamethrower to the Liberal Fifth Column which has infected our Church! Benedict is marginally better but what we really need is a Pope like the one who placed 7 French bishops on trial for heresy after that most holy Council of Trent!
Oh, get over your pompous
Oh, get over your pompous self already paulte. We're tired of hearing your old medieval "burn em at the stake" mentality. Grow up already! Get out of your ghetto of "Second Counter Reformation." How idiotic, to believe the first one did any good!! Preposterous to even believe that it did any good in the world. "Holy Council" of Trent my a$$.
Both the First Vatican
Both the First Vatican Council as well as the Council of Trent were doctrinal and most holy. The Second Vatican Council was pastoral and flawed. Hopefully in the future a real Pope will come along and have the guts to annul it!
Paulte, It is heresy to say
Paulte,
It is heresy to say that a Council is flawed. Believe me, I was told that by a local priest (who accused me of not following Council of Trent doctrine). I never did such, but because I speak of all councils as inspired by the Holy Spirit, he called me heretical. I, of course, took his letter to my bishop, who told me HE WAS BEING HERETICAL - he went on to follow the SPX group and is no longer is in the diocese. That's what all right wingers (Conservative Catholics) should do. If you call yourself RCC, get on board. We are the RCC called to live the Spirit of Vatican II. At least I respect those who leave to follow more conservative and traditional 'rules'.
Yes. If you don't agree. . .
Yes. If you don't agree. . . leave. Those who still like Mass in Latin and fish on fridays are no longer welcome in the Church. This is what Christ would have wanted, isn't it?
Excuse me! Pope John Paul II
Excuse me! Pope John Paul II practiced and preached the faith in a communist country. He was shot and attacked with a bayonet (The latter at the hands a former SSPX member ) in performing his duties in the papacy and still carried on. Yet you have the audacity to write he "lacked backbone" For shame!
Yes, he lacked the guts to
Yes, he lacked the guts to really reform the Catholic Church. I stand by my comment. He had his points, no one can deny that. He was a true historical figure as Ronald Reagan was. The two of them are responsible for the end of communism. But the abuse of children and the seduction of adolescent males by errant priests continued during his reign. HE WAS NO SAINT!
Bishop D'Arcy was seeking
Bishop D'Arcy was seeking attention? Do you think he and Quinn just happened to write to America at the same time about the same issue? No, I am sure he was asked to write for a feature for the magazine.
I concur with Mr McKee's
I concur with Mr McKee's assessment of the America article by Archbishop Emeritus John Quinn of San Francisco. After I read it, I felt empowered in my Catholic faith. Bishop's D'Arcy's response left me muttering "unfair". I was referring to the Honors given George W Bush by Notre Dame when so many of the things Bush stood for and did were a slap in the face to Catholic Social Teachings and Catholic morality and yet there was little or no outcry by church officials.
Archbishop Quinn brought a reasoned and substantiated perspective to a discussion that has recently left me wondering "if this is the approach my Church is espousing, what am I doing in it...."
I agree with Archbishop
I agree with Archbishop Sheehan in his concern to preserve the traditional Catholic approach of reasoned dialogue with those who do not share our convictions but I disagree with what he says about remaining silent "because they [the bishops] do not want to engage in a public battle over the issue."
Don't you think, Archbishop Sheehan, that those bishops, the shrill minority right, count on that when they hit the journals, newspapers and the airways?
Dialogue on most issues does not appear to be the strong suit of most of the bishops you refer to but most of the ordinary People of God assume they do speak for the whole.
Saying that civility kept the majority from standing up in opposition to such a vicious attack on President Barack Obama and his appearance at Notre Dame appears downright cowardly.
However, it does provide a benchmark for the level of influence the USCCB and the bishops in general have on many issues. Time was when the American bishops spoke as a group people listened. That time seems to become more distant as the years go by.
If the majority of U.S. bishops disagreed with the tactics of some of their peers in regard to Obama's appearance, then they had the obligation to the People of God to have the integrity to call them on it, no matter what.
Hopefully the silent majority of bishops will have learned their lesson from the Obama-Notre Dame affair, one that could shore up their sagging credibility in the future.
So, although I agree with much of what you have said in this interview Archbishop Sheehan, quite honestly your defense for not taking a public stand comes across more as a disingenuous excuse then anything else.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Amen. The only point made by
Amen. The only point made by the silent bishops is that they are too intimidated (cowardly) to stand up to an angry mob. And the angry mob is well aware of this which is precisely why they use (and will continue to use) the tactics they do. It works.
Sister, I thought you would
Sister, I thought you would like Bishop D'Arcy with all he has done for victims and not passing the blame. But then I thought when he dismissed abusive priests in his diocese he may have went after nuns, who can never be abusers, and so he does not deserve your praise.
The Gospel John gives us
The Gospel John gives us guidance: love one another as Jesus loved us. In our hearts (using prayer) how would Jesus react to this situation??
He would grap a whip of cords
He would grap a whip of cords and drive the dissenters out of the temple.
Yes, what would Jesus do?
Yes, what would Jesus do? Jesus was mercy, was love, was hope!
Dear RT on Aug. 28, 2009.
Dear RT on Aug. 28, 2009.
You stated that "the Gospel John gives us guidance: love one another as Jesus loved us. In our hearts (using prayer) how would Jesus react to this situation?
He would probably gather pieces of rope together, knot them into a whip, and cleanse his Father's house of these bishops.
Silence is not always golden. Sometimes is just plain yellow.
I totally agree...why Notre
I totally agree...why Notre Dame NOW? What have any of the bishops said or done to support the health care bill? That's an issue!
Thank you Archbishop Sheehan
Thank you Archbishop Sheehan and writer Tom Roberts. This article helps remind me that there is hope for the Church! And I needed that!!
And I completely second that.
And I completely second that. Thank you, thank you. There is hope.
Ditto from another Catholic
Ditto from another Catholic that needed an article like this. Thank NCR
Thank you so much for this
Thank you so much for this interview. Maybe there is something to be hopeful about from some of our PASTORAL leaders.
I am about to leave my
I am about to leave my Catholic faith. I also completely agree that there is hope for our Church.
I was an ex-seminarian/Altar server, Extra Ordinary Minister of the Holy Communion, Stewardship committee chairman of our church, homebound minister and Lector in our Church. When we fought so hard for our Pastor NOT to sell our parking lot and NOT to close our profitable school - for the future of our Church, all we got was scorn and disrespect from our Bishop. He even walked out in our only meeting to discuss the future of our School.
Your message brought tears to
Your message brought tears to my eyes...
Please stay. The Church needs you, and you need the graces of the Eucharist. Many of us are grieving over the nastiness and division. All of my family are now dead, so the Christian community in the parish is all the 'family' I have left.
I've sat with our Lord in the Adoration chapel with tears in my eyes many times. I've found some comfort in believing that He weeps for his Church — the lack of true charity, the legalism, the money changers, the unholy religious politics — just as he wept over Jerusalem. I share my tears with His.
Please hang in there with Him.
Peace.
Don't leave the faith because
Don't leave the faith because of some human being. Spiritual faith transends all the beckering that goes on at any level in the Church. Hang in there, until we all see our Teacher in the hereafter.
What kind of "hope" are you
What kind of "hope" are you speaking about? That the Church might change its 2000 year magisterial teaching that abortion is an intrinsic evil?
'Catholic community risks
'Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country.'
It's well along the path of doing that already.
The moral suasion of the US hierarchy is limited to an ever-decreasing cadre of thos who are More Catholic Than The Pope.
Wow, what an inspiration!
Wow, what an inspiration! Thank God for this Bishop!
I SECOND THAT! WOW! KEEP ON
I SECOND THAT! WOW! KEEP ON TALKING BISHOP SHEEHAN! It goes to show that because a small minority make a lot of noise (like those orthodox/trads who flood NCR w/ comments) doesn't mean they represent the majority. I guess the monolithic conservative block of "JPII priests and bishops" has lots of cracks in it!
I have always found the
I have always found the archbishop to be a very caring, emphathetic person. I understand now why he was silent when my own bishop joined the fray when the President went to Notre Dame.
Thank God, indeed!
Peace
Amen! I had to explain to my
Amen! I had to explain to my parish why our bishop suggested that ND rename itself the "Fightin Irish School of Football" or "Indiana School of Humastric Studies". I told them to call the bishop and ask him. Our annual fund for teh diocese dropped by 40% this year.
Oh, to have a Michael Sheehan as our Bishop.
My 401k and 457 dropped that
My 401k and 457 dropped that much, too. Take a look at LA, one of the most "progressive" diocese in the nation. The annual fund, like all economic endeavors suffered massive losses due to the recession. We can count on the numbers being low for the foreseeable future in areas where unemployment and budget cuts have been made.
I believe, along with telling folks to do unto others, Christ told his followers to hot or cold be, but not lukewarm.
I wouldn't do any grave dancing, just yet. Let's see what Benedict has in store for the good bishop.
Was Archbishop Sheehan not a
Was Archbishop Sheehan not a Bishop in 2004 when the USCCB issued "Catholics in Political Life"? Here is the pertinent extract from that document...
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
Catholics in Political Life was developed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians in collaboration with Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFMCap, and Bishop Donald W. Wuerl. It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their June 2004 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.
Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary, USCCB
I don't think that the
I don't think that the article is really talking about the need to adhere to the doctrinal, but rather how a minority of the nation's Bishops reacted to the invitation.
At the time, their extremely loud and quarreling actions seemed demeaning. Certainly they represent Jesus Christ before each of their flocks, but given today's highly educated Catholic laity--many of whom revere Notre Dame as a great Catholic University--it seemed that a more considered and intelligent approach could have been taken. The Bishop's loud, loutish behavior didn't reflect well on the Church and many of us in the pews didn't find their behavior very edifying at all.
Where did you see any bishop
Where did you see any bishop with loud abusive behavior? Are you just mimicking what someone else said. Because the bishops were not loud but prayful. But they did courageously speak out the Truth.
I hope you are willing to
I hope you are willing to point this very same directive from the Bishops to those who give awards, honors or a platform to those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral priniciples in other areas such as the death penality, an unjust war and other Catholic social teachings, including the distribution of wealth, workers right to organize and the prefrerential treatment of the poor.
Monsignor Fay, Is it at all
Monsignor Fay,
Is it at all possible these three conservative bishops (one of them, Chaput, being off the charts on the conservative meter) were simply wrong to propose "Catholics in Political Life" for acceptance by their fellow bishops, who were, perhaps, even more lacking in judgement by voting for it? Frankly, I suggest, they did so merely to maintain some semblance of unity among themselves?
Msgr. Fay, Of course
Msgr. Fay, Of course Archbishop Sheehan was a bishop at that time. The question is, how did he vote on the document? What was the final tally, and what was the breakdown of the voters.
An Archbishop with a moral
An Archbishop with a moral conscience rather than a legalistic persuasion. Thank you so much.
Catholics in Political Life
Catholics in Political Life was directed at addressing Catholic politicians. Hence the name "Catholics in Political Life." President Obama is not and has never been a Catholic. As with the Dalai Lama, or an imam or Baptist minister...all of whom would be ineligible for awards under a universal application of "Catholics in Political Life" (lest they be interpreted as support for decidedly non-Catholic actions), awards and honors to a non-Catholic President do not fall within the purview of "Catholics in Political Life."
In short, Archbishop Sheehan got it right.
JDS on Aug. 26, 2009. A
JDS on Aug. 26, 2009.
A document is not the same as a DOGMA. "Catholics in Political Life" is not
a dogma. Furthermore, it denies the plurality in American life----a person who is elected to office is elected by the registered voters---who can be from a religious background or not at all.
When an elected official speaks, acts, promotes legislative action-s/he does so for all the people---not just Catholics.
And judging by the way the Vatican deals and has dealt with American Presidents and other officials who visit the Vatican, the Vatican's field of vision is much, much, much wider than this document would permit even the Pope or other Vatican officials to have.
Time and time again, the Vatican has posted a very positive view of the Obama Administration---across many areas. It might be time for the USCCB to re-visit this document and take off the overly tight girdle the Bishops have placed upon Catholics in Political Life.
Excellent points, Little
Excellent points, Little Bear.
I've often wondered about the short-sightedness of those who would impose Catholic teaching upon society at large as a matter of law. We are a representative form of democracy, and those elected represent everyone from their district. It would establish a devastating precedent against freedom of religion if any one group was allowed to impose its religious beliefs on everyone else. Catholics would not be enthused about strict Islamic teachings being forced upon everyone else as a matter of state or federal law (just one example). What about certain Protestant sects who have a theology that is distinctly anti-Catholic and claim the Pope to be the antichrist?
.
In our system of law, legal precedent unchallenged by higher judiciary, comes to have the same force of that which has been legislated. Those who carelessly yearn for a theocracy had best remember that the majority religion controlling power would probably not be sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church. We have been there before in this country in not too distant history.
.
Certain Catholic bishops who presently relish their bullying tactics with Catholics, and their influence within the GOP and their lobby in Congress, could easily find themselves coming under religious persecution when another religion acquired the secular political influence Catholics currently enjoy. They are playing with political fire — fire that can warm the hearth for a moment, or once out of control, can burn the house down.
Dear Msgr. William P. Fay, I
Dear Msgr. William P. Fay,
I honestly believe that every man named to be 'bishop' should go to special
classes for 3 solid weeks. Call the class "Bishop 101". In this class, it would be emphasized to the Bishop Candidates that:
1) If they would be teachers---that they must really READ encyclicals written
especially the ones dealing with social issues--but certainly the others
as well.
2) To be very well informed as to what Pastoral Letters the USCCB has written
and to carefully adhere to them. You would be surprised how many bishops
haven't a clue as to what they (as a group) have written. It makes one
wonder who is "ghostwritting" for the good bishops. That they also
understand the current liturgical practices and proper form in
sacramental administration is crucial.
3) To treat their priests as true brothers, rather than mere underlings whose
job is to choke money out of the laity for the bishop's 'pet' projects.
I know of more than one bishops who hasn't had direct contact with their
priests for more than a few years. The bishops act like they are feudal
lords---who don't know or care what is going on in the parishes, among the
priests, or the people.
4) Also if the bishops are teachers----then they should 'teach' their priests
as well. Inform them, not only to the changes going on in the church, but
WHY the changes are going on. Many of the priests are serving in 2,3,4
and dare I say more parishes. They are so busy in their ministries, that
they don't know what is what and where they are.
5) Finally, and most importantly---that bishops understand that they are to
'wash the feet of their people'. It is amazing to bishops that people
look carefully at them. If they are not pastoral---they are seen as
tyrants. Do you want to know what goes on in a woman's mind when she
is contemplating an abortion? Put on plain clothes, go to an abortion
clinic and talk to the women---mostly listen---not preach. Do you want
your people to value what you say? Cook some meals for the poor yourself,
hear confessions of ordinary people a few times a year, get rid of your
opulant mansions---live in a simple (clean, attractive) but simple house
and get rid of your big cars.
Do you want to know what is on people's minds as far as health care is
concerned? Talk and listen to people who have lost their health care,
who have sick children, parents, siblings and friends in the hospitals
and nursing facilities. Listen and learn.
Notre Dame is not diocesean.
Notre Dame is not diocesean. They don't have to do what the USCCB (or D'Arcy) tells them. D'Arcy at least stated that, but many don't. It should have been made more explicit for those scandalized by the Notre Dame invitation. For pro-lifers to exploit their ignorance was itself a scandal.
I agree wholeheartedly with
I agree wholeheartedly with Archbishop Sheehan and applaud him for being concerned to preserve the traditional Catholic approach of reasoned dialogue with those who do not share our convictions.
I agree wholeheartedly that we're in danger of marginalizing ourselves through our unreasonable monomaniacal focus on a single issue, our shouting, bullying and sloganizing.
And I agree that the bishops who sought to grandstand when the Notre Dame invitation was issued bring shame on the church.
But doesn't it often appear that those are the very bishops Rome rewards? One of the first four to speak out was Bishop Greg Aymond of Austin, who issued a statement soon after the invitation to President Obama was made.
And who was subsequently made Archbishop of New Orleans.
Unfortunately, the unthinking shouters and sloganizers seem to be the ones who get Rome's attention.
William Lindsey, on Aug. 26,
William Lindsey, on Aug. 26, 2009.
I certainly agree with you. Of course, the old truism
that "the noisy wheel gets the oil" seems to apply here.
Archbishop Michael Sheehan is
Archbishop Michael Sheehan is a true teacher and shepherd of his flock. He can walk ahead and they will follow, so he does not need to round them up from behind. In the American college of bishops, he is a voice of reason, diplomacy, and pastoral fervor. Like his mentor Cardinal Bernardin, he builds bridges and presents the gospel in a way that encourages people to listen, learn, and believe.
THANK YOU, ARCHBISHOP
THANK YOU, ARCHBISHOP SHEEHAN!!!
Your candor is greatly appreciated. While I understand the "silent majority" of bishops not wanting to make a further scene by fighting in public, their silence does seem rather gutless. Fr. Jenkins was left alone for months to take the full force of the well organized Obama-hating blowhards while a majority of bishops hid out behind closed doors? We certainly don't see the likes of George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Raymond Arroyo, Michael Novak and a legion of likeminded others hiding out. They're all over the place all the time, giving their rightwing Catholic opinions on TV, radio, blogs, books, diocesan newspapers. The single issue rightwing "catholic" media doesn't shy away from public battle either. It's out there deciding who is insufficiently orthodox, stoking outrage for fundraising purposes, telling people how to vote, organizing demonstrations and keeping track of "good" and "bad" clergy. Needless to say, the combative bishops are its darlings. And then there's recent convert Randall Terry who loves nothing more than making a scene. He was on TV last night parading around like an insane person screaming BABY KILLER as he was ejected from a town hall meeting on health care. Yet the majority of USCCB are afraid of making a scene? In truth, they needed to speak up years ago. The real embarrassment is that a majority of bishops remained silent far too long while the above mentioned "opinion makers" took over the Church.
I couldn't agree more. It
I couldn't agree more. It gets lonely out on a limb, and you wonder where all those voices are that agreed with you in private but suddenly find "virtue" in avoiding confrontation. I commend the bishop for finally speaking up, but to those who have not: this is no time for delicate concerns such as "giving scandal." After all, much scandal has already been given and it needs tn be ADDRESSED. No one ever died from a verbal confrontation.
So am I to understand that
So am I to understand that life is not sacred, that abortion is OK? I agree that dialogue is good but I also believe that some things are just plain evil and giving an award, especially in law, to someone who fully supports abortion goes against all church teaching. We cannot as a church be on both sides of the fence at the same time. Either we are firm that abortion is evil or we admit that we do not follow church teaching. And you can check with the Early Church Fathers, they denounced abortion from the beginning. I do not believe that the Archbishop is pro-abortion but I also do not think that Notre Dame represents Roman Catholic thought, it appears to be Secular Catholic. Maybe the Secular Catholics should start their own church.
WOW, A sober bishop !
WOW, A sober bishop !
To isolate oneself from all
To isolate oneself from all in power who don't agree with Christ (as we understand Him) on 100% of issues, is to leave oneself alone with Christ (assuming we understood Him correctly). Christ did not alienate Himself from those who were not perfect, indeed he sought out the poor, the outcast, the despised, and associated with them at dinner and in conversation. Christ lost patience only with those who exalted details while ignoring principles.
If we and our beloved Church choose to isolate ourselves from all in power who do not agree 100% with us on abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, and all other issues, we will have no one left to talk to. Confrontation is a tool useful only when all forms of conversation have failed despite seven time seven efforts. Even then confrontation only makes us feel virtuous, while turning off some we've yet to try to converse with. Shunning the imperfect politicians who agree with us on social justice, while embracing the politician who disagrees with us on social justice and only purports to agree with us on abortion, is a demonstrably failed policy. The anti-abortion politicians who had complete control of the federal government took no steps to ban abortion, and enacted policies enriching some and beggaring the average folks, conned us but good. Let's try collaboration with those who wish to help the common folks.
Dear Ted and all, There are
Dear Ted and all,
There are also many of us "inside the Church" that do not agree with conservative church doctrine when they speak of science, the stem cell issue being a good example, because so much doctrine does not take into consideration the observed scientific phenomena. It is interesting when any group, be they a certain group of neoconservative bishops or even disparaging scientists, claim to understand The Truth. When a person believes he or she knows The Truth, it puts them in the megalomanic mind set of knowing the mind of God. We are finite beings and we must seek truth, we can not know The Truth.
I, too, was glad to read this article, but see it as a bit pale and late. If there are a majority of the Bishops that do not agree with the neoconservatives who are truly ruining the Church, along with a powerful group in the Vatican that continues to cover up not just the sex scandal but so many other scandals, financial and misogynistic to name a few, then these men are weak kneed cowards. This weakness comes from fear of change and is not Christlike. I think what is apparent it is the time of the laity to present truth as it is observed and let the Bishops stew if they can not accept an authoritative way to seek truth. They are rejecting the revelations of the Holy Spirit given to all the people of God because they fear what is revealed to outside their small group. They seem to fear that it will make them look small but they actually look small because of their fear. If there is a "silent majority” of Bishops that think more authoritatively, their silence is hurting the Church. May they speak out now because the consequences of their silence are unacceptable!
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dr Porch: The issue is not
Dr Porch:
The issue is not one of science but of theology and therefore philosophy. All science tells us are the details of the phenomena, but the Church interprets those facts for ethical principles. There was a question centuries ago as to when the human in the womb becomes ensouled; every Catholic knew it did, but at what point was not clear. Thanks to science we now know it is at the moment of conception: it is a new life that grows of its own intention, and according to its unique DNA it is a human life. When was the last time you heard modern science talking about souls or intentionality of organisms?
A little lesson on Truth is forthcoming: the Church knows the Truth because Jesus is the Truth, and He is head of the Church. The ones ruining the Church are those "Catholics" who belittle, ignore, or "question" the teachings of the Church, that is, its Magisterium. From your comments about the Holy Spirit and the laity, these would be more in line with Protestant thinking, not Catholic. The laity does not decide the Magisterium.
It's EMBRYONIC stem cells
It's EMBRYONIC stem cells that the church has taken issue with, don't try to confuse the issue.
Dear Ted and other, The
Dear Ted and other,
The hypothesis is where science begins and it extends to observation of phenomena. Many scientists and mathematicians are philosophers first. It takes that type of mind to come up with a good hypothesis. No, to be literate in our world it takes a person that can make up his or her mind about truth, then reconsider and make further hypothesis for truth. NO ONE other than God Himself knows THE TRUTH. We as finite beings can only study truth. So much of the Bible is prophetic and must be understood in the time frame of the prophesy and more of it is metaphorical. Not many dogmatists are very good with metaphor and this creates real problems. Dogmatists believe that they know THE TRUTH and this causes a high degree of megalomania in their minds because they can never know the mind of God.
There is no humility in this type of dogmatism only a delusion of certainty. This is a very bad mistake of Catechatical Catholics.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Either it's okay to kill
Either it's okay to kill innocent humans or it isn't. Not so long ago lynching a human black was not illegal, today killing a human embryo is not illegal. Who knows what madness you and your like-minded will bring tomorrow.
This article is very
This article is very heartening to me and my "godless lib" mind.
I guess there is some hope for the Catholic Church after all. Unfortunately, the Church has become part of the Repub party, the Theocon part.. It has given itself over to it's lust for ever more political power and the 30 pieces of silver promised by the Bush Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
When GWB declared himself to be Jesus Christ(on 4 occasions) all so called Christians should have been very alarmed and distanced themselves from him. Religious leaders including the Pope(s) should have either declared him a heretic and blasphemer or at least questioned his sanity. As a psychologist, we refer those who declare themselves to be Hitler, Napolean, Superman OR Jesus Christ for a clinical evaluation to determine whether they are a threat to themselves or others.
GWB has been a threat to himself since Jr. HS, when he sold/did drugs and booze. Upon becoming governor of Texas he became a threat to others as he was part of that group of people who endorse the "Law and Order" mindset which always condemns others to death, either in the name of corporate profits or property. This is the political party which condemned Blacks to slavery, as the Catholic Church once did. Since becoming prez GWB became a threat to the life of everyone in the ME. And do not claim he is an antiterrorist, when in reality all he espouses is what can only be thought of as Republican/southern?right wing terrorism, which is usually economic terrorism and now has morphed into Neocon/Theocon(using religion as a political weapon) terrorism. Unfortunately, this Theocon terrorism has consumed The Catholic Church as well. .
The Church should have separated itself from Bush and their Repub tendencies/adherences. It did not. And please do not tell me that the Pope(s) spoke out against the Bush oil wars. The did. But it was way-far too late and way-far too little. We, so called, godless libs knew in the Spring of 2001, long before 9/11, that the GWB presidency was an oil presidency(GWB, the Bush family, Cheney, Condi Rice). If we knew it certainly the Church did.
Lest one think I'm an angry Dem and for the sake of disclosure: I was always a mixed ticket voter, voting for whomever was doing a good job. I always voted for Voinovich and DeWine. How stupid of me to not recognize Reagen's 11th commandment for what it was, a demand for unthinking economic totalitarianism in support of American plutocracy and the Calvinistic worship of the "gospel of prosperity".
One should never exchange one evil(abortion committed by a few poor and uneducated women, or homosexuality committed by those who are destined by their genetics) for another(Republicanism, Reagenism, Trickle Down Economics. Fascism; Militarism, death for the sake of corporate/wealthy profits, committed by many millions and with political malice aforethought).. Any theology that kills is deadly theology, EVEN if it is Catholic theology. The Commandment says: "Thou shalt NOT kill". It does not say it is okay for Catholic theology or the pope(s) to kill(Crusades, Inquisitions, Reichskonkordat of 1933).
But then I'm just a "godless lib", hated 24/7/365 by the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, Noonan, Buchanan, Scalia, Santorum, etc, ad nauseam.
Where are the aforementioned headed? Where do they want to take America? Scalia gave a speech in May of 2000, before a closed audience. In that speech he espoused the end of our Rule of Law in America. In that same speech he called for the end to our American democracy. Clearly they are headed to a Fascist Theocracy, not unlike Iran. Jesus very clearly warned us to not merge church and state, our beloved Constitution does the very same. But 'moral relativists' just ignore Jesus admonition.
Jeb Bush has been trying to theocratize the State of Florida since he left the governorship. Beware of false prophets. May this be another warning. Don't say you weren't warned. You have just been. Beware of how you vote in 2010 and most especially in 2012. We Catholics will be expected to vote for Sarah Palin(Apostolic Pentecostal) Jeb Bush(Catholic) and Newt Gingrich(now Catholic) among others(Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee), who espouse the false promises of wealth, promised by Reagen Republicanism, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and The Project for a New American Century(PNAC).among others.
Beware of He who makes false/illusory and very tempting promises. IMHO, this Repub conflation of Big Business and Big Religion is clearly diabolical.
The Family of Man was created by God, Our Heavenly Father. The good nuns taught us that. Unfortunately, the Repub party, the party of St. Reagen is well on the way to destroying God's creation. Just ask yourself:: how does the killing in Iraq for oil company profits have anything to do with Pro-life. Ask yourself: how does attacking working class families wages have anything to do with Family Values. There goes Pro-life and Family Values, right out the window. Pro-life and Family Values is nothing more than Rove, Bush and the GOPs use of same in order to capture your votes, AND then perpetrate their usual economic tradegies and wars for profits.
Pride goeth before the fall. And Repubs(Cons, Neocons and Theocons--Catholic fundies and evangelical fundies) are consumed by the PRIDE of their own self serving convictions. And the worst of these is the first, referring to the sin of Pride, in this case the thinking that one is so totally self righteous.that there is no chance of committing error, the error of sin, the error of infallibility, either economic or religious.
Finally, it's not likely that this post will be printed, my previous post about Sarah Palin(yesterday) was not, since it was probably "just too liberal". In a fundamentalist authoritarian religion, thinking is arrogant and elitist. It seems that the Catholic Church I grew up in, served Mass in and sang in the choir is long gone. The Catholic Church of the late 40s, 50s and 60s is no more. War mongering, fear mongering and hate mongering have taken over!!! 24/7/365. The hate never ends. It began under Reagen and never stops.
I, most likely, won't be with you by 2012 due to a terminal illness. Your vote carries an awesome responsibility. God's creation the Family of Man depends on it.. Republican economic greed is consuming this nation and taking down the the entire world as well. I do not wish to live in such a world, consumed by greed, mammon, avarice, the Golden Idol, The Fatted Calf. The Republican party and their Religious Right can have it. Unfortunately the totally innocent children of the world will pay the price, possibly the ultimate price for that greed.
Pray for Peace.
May God receive Ted Kennedy into His heaven.
BobTr900, Peace. I agree with
BobTr900, Peace.
I agree with most of your points, but it concerns me that you sound very angry. I certainly cringe when I hear so much angry, hateful, misinformed communication from the right-wing media, but it is their constitutional right to speak. Please don't let them infect you with their anger and hate! And I am very disturbed by the embarrassing statements of some bishops, who I would expect to set a better example of being Christ-like. I prefer to counter with calm, peaceful and reasonable responses, so I appreciate the comments of Archbishop Sheehan. Reasonable discourse will not necessarily change the opinion of those who have already made up their minds on the subject, but it may influence reasonable people who are still looking at the facts. And it won't alienate any potential allies.
Peace, brother! God does love us all(I don't think you are really god-less).
And yes, I will pray for peace.
I agree exactly with what you
I agree exactly with what you said. I left the Catholic church in 2003, after listening to a fanatical priest attack homosexuals from the pulpit. When Bush attacked Iraq in March 2003, in defiance of the repeated pleas from the Holy Father, I went to Mass the following Sunday and not one word in opposition was uttered from the pulpit. This was has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Whole ethnic groups have been wiped out ( the Iraqi Catholics have almost entirely fled the country). Yet the Catholic church, which should have been screaming for us all to man the barricades, stayed silent. But God forbid gays marry! The threat of gays marrying woke the sleeping giant of the Catholic heirarchy, which roused the dwindling numbers of faithful into political action in opposition to the dread threat of 2 people loving each other! I cannot stomach today's Catholic church. It has become an arm of the wealthy Republicans and whenever it intervenes in the political realm is almost invariably on the side of wealth and power and privilige over social justice and peace. So this Archbishop disagrees with the noisy tactics of a "minority" or rightwing bishops, why didnt he come out in opposition when it could have done any good? The Catholic church has lost all moral credibility after protecting seriel pedophiles for years and years and now has become the mouthpiece for a Republican party which is bent on destroying the enviromnent, unions, the middle class and then has the gall to call itself "pro-life"! And the Catholic church lets it get away with it. My foot will not darken a Catholic church door until it ceases its material co-operation with war-mongers and union-busters in the Republican party, and ceases its sinful gay-bashing. Shame on you cowardly bishops who allow this travesty to continue!
May the so called "hate'
May the so called "hate' continue in the Church until eveyone of you liberals is driven from the Church forever. Amen
Sounds like 'Anonymous' would
Sounds like 'Anonymous' would prefer that Christ be driven from the Church forever. He had the temerity to dine with sinners! Stinkin' liberal! Let the hate continue in the Church until Judgment Day, Anonymous, and prepare to be surprised.
Dear anonymous,
Dear anonymous,
I pray that our good Lord will forgive your blasphemous and uncharitable prayer.
You know not what you ask. Luke 9:52-55
Peace.
Wow, thanks for the Christian
Wow, thanks for the Christian charity. The funny thing is that Jesus drove the 'money changers' from the temple. You might not get your wish. amen.
Thank you. Please encourage
Thank you. Please encourage the other bishops to find ways to communicate with us, an educated and well thought community of lay people, before we withdraw, automatically creating an isolated community of bishops. You could dialogue with us before your own isolation is an obvious fact.
Post new comment