Bishops' views don't always find favor among laity

We should be careful not to misunderstand the role of a bishop. As successors to the apostles, bishops are not democratic representatives of a particular constituency, but defenders of the deposit of the faith and shepherds of their flock. While there is room for collegiality and consultation in practical matters (i.e. governance of churches, funding, charities, etc.), in matters of faith the bishops guide and lead rather than follow their flocks. On matters related to faith and morals, the number of people who agree or disagree with their bishops is immaterial to their stance. The bishops represent the teachings of the Faith, not the people practicing it.

“I would suggest that the 31 consecutive wins (across the country) when this issue goes to the ballot ... indicate that a majority of people who indicate they're undecided in polls actually oppose this.”

Another way to interpret the data is that people who are undecided are unlikely to vote to change the status quo, even if they have some degree of sympathy for the innovation.

Wow where do I begin!

First, all those lay Catholics who favor same sex marriage need to face the fact that they are heretics. I know you guys dont like that word, but the truth stings some time.

Second, Jon OBrien and his Catholics for Free Choice friends have self excommunicated already. They deserve our sincere prayers that they seek reconiciliation with the Church. Baby murderers all of them.

Third, why do we care what Bishop George Councell of the Episcopal Church has to say? He is an apostate. He isnt Catholic.

The nations Catholics find themselves out of step with the Catholic bishops because.....they are out of step with the bishops. They need to go to Mass on Sundays, go to confession regularly and start making worthy reception of the Eucharist so Gods sanctifying grace can foster conversion. Until such time as the masses are willing to do so, we wont have a laity in step with the bishops.

It all has to start with an act of faith folks. Some of you at NCR need to take that under consideration.

Is NCR even remotely serious or even remotely Catholic????

It's not that the "bishops" oppose so-called same-sex marriage.

It's that the Holy Spirit-guided Magisterium of the Church TEACHES that *God*
opposes it.

Big difference--the authority of Jesus Himself, and the protection of the Holy Spirit, stands with the "bishops," and not with the proponents of "same-sex marriage".

Why can't NCR objectively report what the Church actually teaches instead of constantly burying it in the guise of bishops' "opinions"??? Sheesh...

It's a top-down church. Bishops don't speak for their flock - they speak for the pope.

Catholic bishops, and many other heads of religious groups, love politics. It gives them a sense of power and a chance to influence.

For me, as a Catholic, I am going to blame the Catholic bishops if health care reforms fail to pass Congress. Their power play will have hunt many millions of Americans without good health insurance.

And I am not just talking about the poor here --- listen up Tea Party members --- the middle class is being denied coverage, facing higher premiums, pawns in the hands of big insurance companies.

Even some of the wealthy will hurt. One wealthy friend, a woman whose high premium insurance covered her and her disabled husban, was dropped this summer by her insurance company because they did not like the report from the lab on her recent blood test...fearful of some disease potential.

YES, BLAME THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS IF HEALTH CARE REFORMS FAIL. They have had their power play.

The differences come because most Catholics are not single issue voters. They are more educated nowadays and can weigh this and that. What comes from the bishops' announcements have a black and white tone to them (though not every bishop does that or think like that). Catholics live and interact in the real world, the bishops appear to be jumping over themselves as fast as they can for a promotion to Rome. This real-world-centric and Vatican-centric difference does promote the division between the laity and upper office clergy (many parish priests side with the laity, either right or left depending on the parish).

Thank God the Church is not a democracy! This story goes to show you how poor the catechesis is in so many American parishes. It also demonstrates the extent to which secular values have influenced the thinking of American Catholics, such that a large number of the lay faithful approach moral issues without any consideration of the Gospel. Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us. Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

When the Bishops present positions many in the laity do not support, they do it with our money! Perhaps they could not be so active if they had less money?

United Methodist G.W. Bush refused to even meet with a delegation of United Methodist Bishops ahead of the invasion of Iraq. He at least did Pope John Paul II the courtesy of taking his call-though he acted opposite of the teachings of both the Pope and his own church.

Brannigan said he believes Catholics are less divided on the issue than polls indicate.     In a Pew poll released in October,   45 percent of Catholics favored same-sex marriage,   43 percent opposed it   and   12 percent did not know.     “I would suggest that the 31 consecutive wins (across the country) when this issue goes to the ballot ... indicate that a majority of people who indicate they're undecided in polls actually oppose this,” he said.

Brannigan has drawn a conclusion that does not necessarily follow.     Ballot referendums depend entirely on whether voters actually understand the proposition as it is stated — proposing new law or rescinding current law — and what a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote actually means.     Our own local experience has shown that many people unintentionally voted the exact opposite of how they intended because of convoluted ballot wording that they did not correctly understand.
.
The old joke of a yes/no question — “have you stopped beating your wife?” — is a very real example of the wording conundrum plaguing referendums.     What exactly,   does ‘yes’ or ‘no’ mean in this case?     What implied information goes with the question?     Are there actual or implied double negatives?     Partisan push-polling works on the same principle.     Even a “yes” response to the question:   “are you pro-life?”   does not necessarily mean that the person responding intends to say they are unequivocally “anti-abortion” in every situation.
.
Activists on either side,   generally those with the largest funding,   who do the best job of instructing their constituencies ahead of time on exactly which way to vote rather than trying to comprehend the odd wording at the poll,   have the greatest success in gaining a win.     Obviously,   activism dollars being funneled into a state from groups in other states can quickly cause one side (even the minority) to gain an unfair communication and instruction advantage — to both instruct their own voters,   and to promote disinformation to the voters on the other side.
.
Pew Research has greater statistical credibility than voter referendums with all of its uncontrolled variables.     Even in our conservatively run diocese with its extremely conservative bishop,   the Pew statistics more accurately reflect the opinion numbers for Catholics who attend Mass at least weekly or more often — the regulars.

Tis church is so outdated --- who listens to the bishops?

Some teachers!! These bishops have taught us how to:

-Cover up sex abuse scandals
-Mismanage diocesan funds
-Get George W. Bush elected
-Use the Eucharist vindictively as a political tool
-Accept whatever the Vatican says without a hint of disagreement
-Discriminate against gays and lesbians
-Relegate women to second class status
-Never seek a point of view from the laity
-Address the abortion issue as a criminal one rather than a pastoral one
-Raise up an army of biretta and lace loving imperialist priests
-Allow some Vatican bureaucrat to tell how to speak our own language

Same sex marriage is a rights question, so it is not a subject for either clerical opinion or popular majority. The two legal questions are whether opposition to gay marriage is based on malice against an identifiable group (clearly it is - and this is impermissable constitutionally) and whether the spouses of gay children should have less rights vis-a-vis the family of origin than the spouses of straight children in dealing with property and end-of-life and health care issues (this question is the impetus to gay marriage and the answer is that when a couple marries, they become one flesh - regardless of gender).

What has the Church running scared is that when the civil law of marriage changes, canon law usually follows - which puts the hierarchy in a bit of a quandry - especially since many of those young gay couples who will be getting married come from good Catholic families who give money to the Church (and who will expect some blessing for the new legal union).

This is truly sad. None of our catholic Democratic senators will do something as basic as defend innocent life even when urged by the Pope and the bishops.

I dont understand it. Abortion is our greatest scial evil, by far, with a million innocent children dliberately killed every year. Why is this not our most urget priority. What can begin to compare to it? Do we think that the state doesnt have a duty to protect all human beings? Why is it okay to kill children, but not adults?

The day my views start to agree with the Bishops is the day I start to get real concerned about my practice of charity.

The Catholic hierarchy has, by its insistence that official Church teaching is, if not technically infallible, certain and "irreversible," locked itself into positions that become more and more untenable as time goes on. Thomas Henry Huxley could not respect the theologians of his day, because they "refused to adjust their conclusions in the face of new evidence." He called them "champions of the foregone conclusion." Today, we have many very fine truly open-minded and scholarly theologians, and we should literally thank God for them. But since the election of John Paul II, elevation to the episcopacy has gone to our modern-day "champions of the foregone conclusion." This will have to change or the official Church will fall into irrelevancy.

The Church needs to be honest about its past. It eventually dropped its defense of the "divine right of kings" and of slavery. It must eventually reverse itself on the ordination of women, homosexual unions, and artificial contraception. One day the Magisterium will reverse itself on these things too, and each reversal will begin with the words "the Church has always taught." But the Catholics of today should not expect to live to see it.

Joe Wessling, Cincinnati

Alas, much of the above seems to be true. Tip O'Neil said "All politics is local," meaning, Joe Blow might be pro-choice but I'll vote for him because he brings home the bacon (er, pork)". The quickest way for a politician to lose an election is to not pay attention to the people in their district. A few dinosaurs seem to be able to overcome that lack of attention "because they always have."
It tickles me to see observations such as "church is so outdated" These are the comments of those who would write their own religion, or eliminate it altogether. Match that "outdated" Church with any human organization or endeavor and what do you get? Nothing. Give the Church some points for lasting as long as it has, in SPITE of all the foolish things done by people in the name of the Church.

Bishops are not like politicians. They govern with the truth, not by opinion polls. The Anglican bishops seem to govern by public opinion and change their beliefs every few years. How has that worked out for them?