USCCB: It ain’t easy being a bishop, especially after the ’08 elections
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Baltimore
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: It ain’t easy being a bishop. As proof, just consider the avalanche of wildly conflicting advice descending upon the Catholic bishops of the United States as they gather Nov. 10-13 in Baltimore, most of it focused on abortion, the 2008 elections, and where the bishops go from here.
Some analysts, especially those of a more liberal bent, are spinning the election of Barak Obama as a “repudiation” of what they see as an overly strident and partisan tone from the bishops, especially on abortion. A few ardently pro-life Catholics, meanwhile, actually believe that what they call “silence and treachery” from the bishops on abortion helped pave the way for Obama’s success. Pro-lifers who fault the bishops for being too subtle are planning to wear Obama masks outside Baltimore’s Marriott Waterfront, where the bishops are meeting, with signs reading, “I couldn’t have been elected without you.”
High-profile Catholic commentators have been similarly, and perhaps predictably, all over the map.
Jesuit Fr. Tom Reese, for example, has suggested the bishops follow the lead of “pragmatic pro-lifers,” who do not necessarily support criminalization of abortion but rather social policies to reduce the actual number of abortions. Meanwhile, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, writing on his First Things blog, has counseled the bishops in Baltimore to avoid “calculated timidity,” and to bear in mind that “it is not their business to win political races” but rather “to defend and teach the faith, including the church’s moral doctrine.”
Fr. John Jay Hughes, a noted Catholic writer based in St. Louis, has offered yet another perspective. Since the prospect for legislative or judicial progress under Obama – i.e., overturning Roe v. Wade – is virtually nil, Hughes suggested earlier this week, the challenge is to win the argument for life on the cultural level. In other words, the bishops should focus on changing hearts and minds, not, at least for now, the law.
Still others are counseling the bishops to focus on other matters where Catholic social teaching and the President-elect seem closer to a meeting of minds, such as immigration reform, poverty relief, peace-making, and environmental protection.
Complicating things further, as the bishops gather in Baltimore, is that the conflicting voices don’t come just from outside the conference. The bishops themselves “aren’t of one mind,” as Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, vice-president of the conference, put it in a mid-October interview in Rome with NCR.
To be clear, there’s no disagreement among the bishops on the core teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil. How to translate that into concrete pastoral and political choices, however, is another matter. Russell Shaw, former spokesperson for the bishops’ conference, offered a rough-and-ready taxonomy this week by dividing the bishops into three categories:
• “Hardliners,” who want to deny communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians and who believe that under canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, pro-choice legislators and judges (and, possibly, ordinary Catholics who vote for them) have excommunicated themselves;
• “Compromisers,” who support a less confrontational approach to politicians who don’t follow church teaching, in hopes of finding common ground and avoiding impressions that the bishops are overly partisan;
• A largely silent majority who are just trying to keep their dioceses going, and who hope that polarizing national debates like this one will somehow go away.
Here’s a very practical illustration of the tough choices bishops will have to navigate over the next four years: Should the next Vice-President of the United States, Joseph Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, be turned away from communion at Catholic parishes, or barred from speaking at Catholic colleges? Even bishops equally opposed to abortion may reach very different conclusions on such matters. (It’s worth noting in this regard that after Biden took communion in Tallahassee, Florida, on Nov. 2, Bishop John Ricard of Penscola-Tallahassee sent a letter which did not bar Biden outright from communion but appeared to suggest that he should not present himself for the sacrament.)
Facing tough questions and competing views, both inside and outside the conference, one option for the bishops in Baltimore would be to simply dodge the question and play for time – perhaps in hopes that as the wounds of the election heal, it will be possible to approach the issue more rationally.
For a brief period on Friday and Saturday it seemed that choice might prevail. Religion News Service quoted a spokesperson for the bishops to the effect that, previously announced plans to the contrary, they wouldn’t discuss abortion and politics. Sr. Mary Ann Walsh told RNS the feeling was that whatever needed to be said on abortion, especially in the wake of public statements from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Biden claiming that church teaching wasn’t clear, had already been said in numerous statements both from the conference and from individual bishops.
By mid-day Saturday, however, it became clear that taking the issue off the table wasn’t going to work, as a growing number of bishops who were arriving in Baltimore pressed for a discussion. One prominent bishop, for example, told a reporter on background that it would be “cowardice” if the conference didn’t tackle abortion and the elections during one of the public sessions.
In the end, the bishops will actually take up abortion and the elections no fewer than three times in Baltimore: during their regional meetings, during a public session, and once more in executive session behind closed doors.
Agreement to talk, however, hardly signifies consensus on what to say. One bishop put the prospects this way: “This may be a rather bloody time from some of the things I am hearing,” he said. “But sometimes the talk is hotter than the reality, since we are a senate of gentlemen!”
Almost certainly, one focus will be the bishops’ “Faithful Citizenship” document, which was adopted one year ago as the conference’s principal statement on the 2008 elections. At the time, the document was widely hailed for bringing together the pro-life and the “peace and justice” constituencies. It underscored the full range of Catholic social concerns – including poverty relief, racism, and war – but assigned a clear pride of place to the defense of unborn life.
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the statement said.
Controversially, however, the document also acknowledged at least the theoretical possibility that a Catholic who fully accepts church teaching on abortion could nevertheless vote for a pro-choice candidate – despite, rather than because of, that stance – on the basis of “proportionate reasons.”
In the wake of Obama’s success among Catholic voters, some critics now blame “Faithful Citizenship” for blurring the church’s emphasis on abortion.
“Its elaborate attention to nuance and painstaking distinctions made it a virtual invitation for the Catholic flaks of Obama to turn it upside down and inside out,” Neuhaus wrote. “The statement was regularly invoked to justify voting for the most extreme proponent of the unlimited abortion license in American presidential history.”
Shaw agreed, calling broad consensus statements from the bishops on political matters “of questionable value,” noting that some pro-Obama Catholics “mined” the document to support their choice.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver told RNS that the document “didn’t and doesn’t work because it’s been applied by different people in very different ways.”
The U.S. bishops have issued guidance to Catholic voters prior to every presidential race since 1976. In light of these reactions to “Faithful Citizenship,” however, it seems an open question whether that tradition will continue. (That’s not a decision they have to make, however, this week in Baltimore.)
Another tension between “hardliners” and “compromisers” that could surface at Baltimore concerns a parish collection set for late November by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a church-affiliated charity intended to support the working poor. Neuhaus has called upon the bishops to “shut down” the campaign, asserting that it has funded pro-abortion activities over the years, that its resources go entirely to non-Catholic agencies, and that it was a major contributor to ACORN, a network of community-based groups that backed Obama.
Barring something dramatic in Baltimore, it seems for now the Nov. 22-23 collection will go ahead as planned. On Nov. 3, the bishops’ conference issued a press release from Bishop Roger Morin, auxiliary bishop of New Orleans and chair of the conference subcommittee on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, urging church-goers to contribute.
“In the name of all of the Catholics in the United States, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development fights poverty and challenges injustice,” Morin said.
On at least one front, the bishops seem poised to make a collective statement with implications for the abortion debate: They will vote on, and probably approve, a new “Order for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb” in both English and Spanish. Assuming that the bishops adopt it and the Vatican gives its okay, the text will be added to the official “Book of Blessings.” Conference materials describe the blessing as intended “to support parents awaiting the birth of their child, to encourage in the parish prayers for and recognition of the gift of the child in the womb, and to foster respect for human life within society.”
Whatever happens over the next few days, one thing at least seems crystal clear: Nothing the bishops could possibly do in Baltimore – including, to be sure, doing nothing – is likely to satisfy everyone.
So much pro-choice rhetoric;
So much pro-choice rhetoric; so little common sense and compassion in all these previous comments.
Liberal Catholics just don't seem to get it, so let me paint this senario:
Some eccentric abortion doctor has your little 1 month old child in his surgery room, he wants to try out his new set of tools on the baby to see how well he can crush the baby's head and pull limbs off from the torso: because the law says he can do it. You try to stop him but clinic security guards keep you away. So you end up with a dead baby. You then work hard to get the word out on this injustice; but liberal Catholics keep telling you that we've got to take care of the poor and stop the war before we can render any priority to your "SINGLE ISSUE" rantings.
We've chopped up some 50 million kids in a mere 35 years; don't you people think it's time to pull your head out of the sand? Go to wwwpriestsforlife.org or 100abortionpictures.com and meditate on the dismembered children. I think you all need to take a remedial course in reality 101.
Try this one. Some
Try this one. Some eccentric dentist puts his female patients under anesthesia and then rapes them. Should they be forced to carry to term the pregnancy that results, and that they notice two months down the road because they don't even know they've been raped?
Do you really believe God has anything at all to do with a pregnancy concieved under these conditions?
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Is it the child's fault that
Is it the child's fault that it was a product of rape? Should one wrong lead to another wrong?
Why editorialize any of
Why editorialize any of this! I'm an uneducated, not very intelligent, not even middle class anymore, baptized catholic! Having, with the help of the good Brothers of the Sacred Heart, established myself, in my own mind, as a hyper alert "wind sniffer" of clergy, it seems relatvely simple!
The Bishops, hereinafter referred to as "they", drag out the pro life banner whenever it atrikes their fancy or portends to accomplish their goals! This time, it seems, that they wrapped themselves in the "The Banner" as a degree of protection from those who would question their veracity on the abuse issue! Wrapped in a cloak crafted of dead innocents, they feel protected from the legions of souls dead or dying, subsequent to their deceit, arrogance, and hypocracy! They seem to have considered "The Banner" to be invincible! And so attacked their political enemy with a "dead innocent" sword from behind "The Banner"! It failed them! Yet they plod on! Same old sword, same old banner!
You are absolutely right! It is not easy to be that arrogant, that righteous, that crass!
The situation brings to mind' the interview of a recently abused quadraplegic I attended, by a social worker, "Why didn't you just leave?" he asked. The man could have been a Bishop!
God bless you John! Try looking with a little less educated and intelligent eye, and be a little more of a "wind sniffer"! It's kept me alive for 67 years!
God loves us all! And so do I!
James Edward
Let's call it what it is.
Let's call it what it is. Neuhaus is a close associate of the neoconservative cabal that took over the White House for eight years and has been trying to do the same to the church in America. His politics clearly take precedence over his faith. So his opinion is of no value to me. I have completely stopped watching EWTN, but I can just imagine what their resident neocon, Raymond Arroyo, is doing with this debate! Until there actually is unity, the bishops should stick to the moral teaching about human life and leave the voting to us. I am finding it harder and harder to defend our church from my pro-choice friends who accuse the hierarchy of being concerned only with abortion. They can issue all of the statements they want, but when they have a vocal minority who spout off about politics and abortion every time they are within shouting distance of a microphone, while remaining silent about so many other issues, the official statements are useless. I am also finding it more difficult to defend against accusations that we Catholics are trying to shove our beliefs down others' throats. With such irresponsible political behavior it is hard to put the focus on the moral issue of respect for human life. Yes, it is hard being a bishop, but it is becoming more difficult each day to be a conscientious, well-informed member of the laity. Which reminds me, where were the "prophetic" voices of our shepherds when the racism and race-baiting was happening every day at McCain rallies and in statements by his "surrogates?"
I have voted for Democrats
I have voted for Democrats for over 50 years.
I voted for Barack Obama. I am a good Catholic.
BJa35319@mchsi.com
The Bishops gather, and for
The Bishops gather, and for what? The American Church as failed to provide clear leadership to its flock as pertains to abortion. This lack of leadership extends well back past the 2008 election. What it means to be pro-life is to first and foremost to not kill the defenseless while they are still in the womb. The expansion of the definition of pro-life to include all that afflicts humankind is convoluting and that along with George Bush's dismal performance, and the lack of leadership from organized religions has defeated the fight against abortion.
There is simply no way that any political party in any country in the world can ever eradicate hunger, disease and war; it's simply not possible through any type of government intervention. We will always have these things - until there is a true conversion of spirit in humankind - only God knows how and if that will ever come about. On the other hand there is something we can do about abortion, or should I say could have done, because short of an armed conflict, I think we've closed the chapter on that book and must leave it in the hands of God. I wonder if we will be able to stand how God deals with it? Armed conflict may turn out to have been the more innocuous solution.
If some great evil empire had arisen and set about to kill 52,829,115 people, then we would surely have risen up and taken to the streets - armed to the teeth. But somehow we see abortion as different - I think it's because these poor little souls are never seen by us in the light of day, and therefore they don't exist (out of sight out of mind). So we've elected a President and a party that clearly does not value the most innocent. I grew up in a time when all things seemed to be within reach, and that kind of hope only came with hard work and solid values. "Hope", we had a lot of that, but it was more then eloquent words and blind euphoria. Still, there were very few times when a newly conceived life would of had to worry about being killed. Of course abortion has always been with us, my Mom would use the phrase "making away with the little things (babies)", in reference to abortion.
Without question there is a "right" and a "wrong" which is devoid of shades of gray - I hasten to add that I don't always know which is which, hence comes the "gray". But I do know for certain that a godless political party is wrong, and I also know that a political party who misuses the name of God to fashion a self-serving policy is equally wrong. I also know that the framers of the Constitution never intended for there to be a separation of God and the state. Still, it turns my stomach to here politicians invoke God's name to bless America. If God is looking for a place to bless, and if indeed God ever did bless this country, then it ended with Roe v Wade, of course that assumes that a country or people can fall out of favor with God.
I suspect that we haven't even begun to pay the price for the great sin of abortion. Sometimes things keep moving forward even when the heart has gone out of it - like a wounded deer whose heart has been shoot out; I fear that's where America is today. I think our worst days are ahead. That may not be a bad thing because people usually don't have a true conversion of spirit until they have nowhere else to turn - from the crucible of fire we shall rise again - Obama may just be the fuel that the crucible has been waiting for. America didn't elect Obama because of some great higher purpose - they voted their pocketbooks - there's no idealism in that. Electing a pro-abortion President especially at a time when the Supreme Court is going to be redefined was simply the last straw. So I really don't know what's left for the pro-life movement. Wow, how ironic is it that you have to have a "movement" in support of life?
A society that tolerates everything most certainly values nothing except their preoccupation with tolerance. The American Church has for too long and for all the wrong reasons have allowed their flocks to bargain with the devil on the issue of abortion. So when the Bishops gather the only thing they should do is to simply pray for forgiveness and ask God to hold back his anger and stay his hand from punishing this wayward flock.
Larry, why do you imagine
Larry, why do you imagine that abortion can be eliminated with legislation? Wouldn't outlawing abortion work just like outlawing drugs has? Isn't all this effort like trying to eliminate proverty by making it illegal? Women aren't choosing abortion just because they can.
Barack Obama was elected by
Barack Obama was elected by a majority of Catholics, despite the directives from bishops or the Pope about abortion. Obviously, these Catholics believe, as statistics show, that choosing a Republican does not reduce the abortion rate. Clearly, when a Democrat is in office the abortion rate is reduced because the causes for abortions are reduced. When there is better health care, access to contraception, economic stability and improved education...abortions decline. Under Bush, abortions increased, under Clinton, they decreased. There are more ways to be pro-life than just being pro-fetus. No one advocates abortions as some kind of a utopian state. On the contrary, it is a tragic, personal decision. The Church's anti-abortion history is very recent and tied to Republican politics and to the red state/ Baptist religion connection as well as with the other wedge issues of gay marriage and more recently stem cell research. Most Catholics have no clue about biblical/ scholarly research which shows that it is a reach to make these main themes for voters. The "common good" message such as reflected in the Beatitudes and Jesus' message to love one another is entirely lost by most bishops. Now there is a push to put kneelers back in churches and return to the Latin Mass! It's no wonder more people are turning to home liturgies, inviting the married priests and the women priests, who were presiders in the early church! Bishops used to be elected by the community, not appointed by the church hierarchy. Since they appear to be more and more irrelevant to the public, are they really necessary?
Excellent point. Let's be
Excellent point. Let's be consistent-including avoiding the carnage of war.
Why did the Catholic bishops
Why did the Catholic bishops go through the trouble of putting together, Major Themes for Catholic Social Teaching, if only one issue is on their mind???
Voting is a gut wrenching experience and the Catholic bishops complicate the voting process!!! When I vote, I try to vote for a candidate who is perceived will do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I guess abortion is an issue that only matters. So, I should vote for Bush II whom I perceive is a mass murderer and a war criminal against humanity. Bush II has secretly given permission to carry out wars all over the planet in order to stop a perceived enemy.
John,regarding the abortion
John,regarding the abortion issue, it's all a matter of credibility. Let me give an example:Fr. Richard John Neuhaus pontificates about what Catholic Bisops should do; he did the same regarding the invasion of Iraq;he pontificated in favour of the invasion and "corrected" Pope John Paul's assessement of the situation. Another Catholic theolgian, Michael Novak even taught that the invasion of Iraq was a moral imperative! My advise to Neuhaus, Novak and the likes of them is to be quiet and do some soul searching; with the grace of the Holy Spirit they may eventually rid themselves of their fundamentalism that militates against the wisdom of God who allows the sun to shine over the good and the bad and will not allow the sickle to be plucked out lest the wheat is damaged.If we love and respect life we have to be consistent and denounce war, poverty, malnutrition, etc as well as abortion.
The abortion issue is a complex one and there will never be full agreement. The focus should be on limiting the time in which it can be performed. Life is a continuum; there is more "life" in a late abortion than in an early one. To claim that time is immaterial because personhood starts at conception is irrational, irresponsible and not condusive towards a responible and ethically tenable position.
Abortion politics is not a
Abortion politics is not a compelling agenda topic for me at this week's Bishop's conference. This position has been well considered thanks to the reading and re-reading of the USCCB 2007 statement of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. With each exploration of the text, I find increased certitude and sure footedness in working out a faithful citizenship role for myself. Those who brush aside the magnificent body of Catholic Social Justice teachings as a guide for not only "hearing the gospel but doing it as well" leaves me flabbergasted, assuming they have given this body of Church teaching serious study. For the Bishop's conference to retreat from its courageous statement passed 222 to 4 can only enhance Catholic confusion and diminution of the credibility of the Bishops' teaching authority.
Sadder still is the silence of the official American Church at the diocesan and parochial level on the difficult choices facing the faithful when it comes to the well being of their country. Our selection of a new president at this moment in time could not possibly ignore issues of competency as well as socio-economic crises of a magnitude unknown except to the oldest members in the pews. Failure to address these real and daily concerns certainly must explain why 54% of Catholic voters "jumped ship" and supported Obama
I am optimistic thanks to a year spent with JUST FAITH MINISTRIES, pursuing a journey into a compassionate reading of the gospel as outlined in our Catholic Social Teachings. I highly recommend a similar study for every sincere and caring Catholic.
It is amazing how quickly we
It is amazing how quickly we forget about the recent synod on the Word of God. I hope that the bishops are sharing best practices with each other concerning lector preparation and homily quality.
The dissatisfaction with Faithful Citizenship stems, I believe, from a mentality that does not trust the laity to make informed decisions about the moral and social environments in which we live. Sounds obvious, but then why don't reporters mention it?
I have nothing but praise for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. Its goal is not to teach or feed - the traditional objectives of our giving - but to financially assist those who help sustain their local communities. This is being done very efficiently and effectively at the national level, by consolidating the meager donations of most of us who cannot act as philanthropists in our own name. Show me a parish or diocese that has not had second thoughts about some of its financing decisions.
Paul Schlachter
Lector Works
The Bishops Conference as it
The Bishops Conference as it applies to me
This is my opinion and only mine. Until the bishops and the Catholic church starts recognizing that all life is precious not just the unborn I don't think that they are true to the letter and spirit of God's law. You can't just say that abortion is bad and leave it at that during and after an election. You must also include the death penalty, euthanasia, among others. Until they do that I for one will just presume that they speak only for a small percentage of the Catholic church and not for me. Like the bumper stickers say you can't be pro-choice part of the time and pro-life the other part of the time, you have to be one or the other.
John, it is much easier
John, it is much easier being a pampered, well-fed Bishop than it is to be a coal miner, a sanitation worker, a steel worker, a janitor, a fast food worker, a telemarketer or any number of real life and often low-paying jobs folks are forced to take in order to support themselves and their families. And that is precisely the problem. While the Church has many fine teachings about social justice "on the books", so to speak, the Bishops, in election cycle after election cycle, seem to obsess about abortion and same-sex marriage almost to the exclusion of everything else. Which is easy enough to do when you are pampered and well-fed and surrounded by "yes-men".
JG Thanks for the article,
JG
Thanks for the article, John. There is much anticipation on what happens this week.
Bishop's Conference in
Bishop's Conference in Baltimore:
It is fitting that the Bishops of the United States get together as they do to discuss and decide issues of import to Catholics and others of faith. Abortion should not be discussed as it is the one issue already settled by several Popes when writing about the Sanctity of Life as our most recently deceased Pope John Paul II did in his encylical. We have definitive knowledge and Church Law on abortion and it will not help to point out the sins of some in deference to all Catholics worldwide. ABORTION IS WRONG!!!!! There are many other matters which are unclear at best and perhaps discussing these issues and publishing a paper would be helpful to all Catholics in an effort to understand better. The United States Election Process should also be not discussed as a matter of good citizenship for we are a country of people and a Constitution of separation of Church and State. Elections are sacred as are Articles of Faith!! Interference in either subjects one to obscene banter and does no one any good!!
How many ways can we say it?
How many ways can we say it? The bishops know,I know,Y'all know. Now why in hell don't they do something about it. Saying the rosary is a good thing but it would be better to invite the pregnant girl or mother into your house. Talking is for the lazy. If the bishops want to do something let them clebrate life and shelter the child.
We need life centers,we need adoption centers and this can be done by catholics or by catholics in conjunction with other christians. Let's do it.
I would agree with you,
I would agree with you, John, that it is not easy being a Bishop. I must add here though that it is not easy to be a Catholic politician either. Not easy either, for the laity who are especially troubled by the Catholic hierarchy’s stance on a number of issues. Not easy to be a Catholic journalist either.
Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if everyone could agree on everything and no one got angry about anything? But that is not the realistic world. Besides, there are lessons hidden in these challenges to our understanding that we must learn from. It is a common truth known to all that not everyone is going to agree on everything. Some act as if diversity or differences of opinion were the enemy. Some narrow everything down to relativism. This is the challenge. This is when opportunity knocks and the Bishops, those in leadership positions can either respond with tyranny, or with grace and peace; with love, or with self-righteous anger; with quick judgments against one’s neighbor, or with prudence and patience; with faith in ourselves or in our current opinions, or with faith in Christ.
For the Church to be denying Communion to Biden would send the wrong message to the world, this nation, and all people, including Catholics. It would be saying in essence that the Church, the Pope, does not support in any way the Obama team that has just been elected, despite its many positive stances on issues of life and it has essentially decided to declare war on a select few deemed unworthy by the "righteous."
The Bishops are from what I gather in your report here, just as divided as the laity when it comes to politics. If Biden is excluded from Communion, so then should any priest or Bishops or laity who voted for Obama/Biden. So then the denial of Communion for Catholic politicians, priests, Bishops, or anyone supporting the death penalty, the War in Iraq, torture, policies of economic greed and racism, etc., etc., etc. That would be responding with tyranny, not with grace. The whole issue of denying Communion is a form of tyranny and self-righteousness. The idea that a handful of Bishops who are outspoken and focused on one single issue only could hijack the senate of Bishops is the day the Church in America officially deforms itself into an image of tyranny and not grace.
Historically, we know how tyrannical elements lead the self-righteous to extreme measures of cruelty against others deemed unworthy. If ever there were a time to show grace alive in the Church, this would be the time to shed the disgrace of self-righteousness and any thought of denying anyone at the table of the Lord at His supper. Lest we forget that it is His table, not really ours and not really owned by one single person around any single issue other than the love of Jesus Christ.
I’ll end here with a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:
“We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”
Tough being a bishop? I bet
Tough being a bishop? I bet it is.
Of course, if:
--- they would start telling the truth (there is a novel idea)
--- start following the rules the rest of us are expected to follow,
--- stop trying to figure out which group to blame for their failures,
--- take personal responsibility for their actions,
--- quit vomiting hate rhetoric
--- spend more of their time being pastoral less on politics
--- spend more time getting their hands dirty serving their diocese
--- spend less time of trying to figure out how to MAKE others serve them
it just might become a little easier to be a bishop, especially if the Holy Spirit didnt have to keep giving them the same "humility" lessons over and over.