Vatican rejects Call to Action appeal; bishop urges return to church
Print Friendly VersionBy S.L. Hansen
Catholic News Service
LINCOLN, Neb. -- The Vatican's highest court said it has no jurisdiction over a decision by Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln that Catholics in his diocese who are members of a dozen organizations were automatically excommunicated.
In the wake of the ruling, Bishop Bruskewitz renewed his invitation to Call to Action Nebraska members to leave that organization and return to full communion with the church.
Rachel Pokora and Gordon P. Peterson of Call to Action Nebraska had asked the Apostolic Signature, the church's supreme court, to overturn Bishop Bruskewitz's 1996 decision and its affirmation last year by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops.
In a Jan. 27 letter to Pokora and Peterson, which was copied to Bishop Bruskewitz, the court said it had "no competence," or jurisdiction, in the matter.
In extrasynodal legislation issued in 1996, Bishop Bruskewitz said Catholics who were members of certain groups would be automatically excommunicated if they did not quit the groups. The penalties applied to members of Call to Action, Call to Action Nebraska and 10 other organizations.
Call to Action Nebraska was the only group to ask the bishop to reverse his decision, to no avail.
The Nebraska group's initial appeal to the Vatican was rejected in 2005. A second appeal to Cardinal Re was declined last November.
In that decision Cardinal Re supported as correct Bishop Bruskewitz's 1996 decision that membership in Call to Action and 11 other groups "is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith" and results in automatic excommunication.
"The judgment of the Holy See is that the activities of Call to Action in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint," the cardinal said in his Nov. 24 letter.
"Thus to be a member of this association or to support it is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic faith," he added.
In their appeal, Pokora and Peterson asked the Vatican court to overturn Cardinal Re's decision based on paragraph 123 of Pope John Paul II's 1988 apostolic constitution, "Pastor Bonus" ("The Good Pastor"), which describes the organization and workings of the Roman Curia. The two said Cardinal Re "exceeded his authority" in affirming the diocesan decision.
In response, the Apostolic Signature noted that "Pastor Bonus" refers to individual administrative acts issued or confirmed by dicasteries, or departments, of the Roman Curia. "A diocesan law is not an individual administrative act, nor is a statement of a dicastery of the Roman Curia concerning the legitimacy of the same law," the letter said.
Bishop Bruskewitz expressed his hope and prayer that Call to Action Nebraska members will soon cooperate with God's grace, repent and return to the church.
As he has said repeatedly, those affected by the 1996 legislation will be welcomed back to the church as soon as they officially renounce their membership in the cited organizations and seek the sacrament of reconciliation. Some may also be asked to make a profession of faith if their affiliation required them to renounce Catholicism.
Although the Vatican appeal only dealt with Call to Action, the other groups named by Bishop Bruskewitz 10 years ago were: Planned Parenthood, Society of St. Pius X, Hemlock Society, St. Michael the Archangel Chapel, Freemasons, Job's Daughters, DeMolay, Eastern Star, Rainbow Girls and Catholics for a Free Choice.
The Hemlock Society works to legalize physician-assisted suicide, and Planned Parenthood and Catholics for a Free Choice both support keeping abortion legal.
Job's Daughters, DeMolay, Eastern Star and Rainbow Girls all are affiliated with the Masons. The Society of St. Pius X and St. Michael the Archangel Chapel both oppose the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and celebrate Mass in the Tridentine rite.
What is it that CTA
What is it that CTA professes that is against Catholic teaching?
Say What? Where to begin?
Say What?
Where to begin?
1. Galileo was ***NEVER*** going to be executed, he was found suspect of heresy for publishing a book which taught something as fact when it was just a hypothesis. He was given a light sentence that consisted of praying the psalms everyday for seven years. His daughter a nun was permitted to complete his sentence for him.
2. Copernicus was a Catholic priest whose work was funded by Catholic bishops. He was never in danger of execution either.
NOTE: "rdp" your credibility nose-dives when you subscribe to anti-Catholic fiction:-)
3. Call To Action, has placed itself outside of Catholic teaching. Either you believe that the Church is right or you do yourself a disservice by remaining in her friendship.
4. If you want a religion whose doctrines are subject to change based on human whims and secular desires then the Catholic Church is simply not for you. You may want to apply for membership at your local Anglican or Unitarian "communions."
5. Finally, for those who believe in rehabilitation vs. excommunication, bear in mind that the Church sex scandal would not have occurred if priests were excommunicated rather than "rehabilitated."
Good Day.
Francis
francisknt@yahoo.com
Dear Francis, Fitst of all
Dear Francis,
Fitst of all I am not a member of Call to Actions, but your assertions of what happened to Galileo are just not correct and by looking at multiple historical texts and you could chek this with a simple Google search.
Copernicus was a physician and a cannon lawyer along with being a mathematician and astronamer. He feared the Church and did not publish his great work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium until he was on his death bead.
Galileo Galilei was born in 1564 at Pisa. Galileo began his studies in medicine at the University of Pisa, but soon dropped out, preferring to study mathematics with Ostilio Ricci. In 1592 he obtained the chair of mathematics at Padua, and began working on the inclined plane and the pendulum. By 1598, Galileo believed in the truth of the Copernican theory, as he wrote to Kepler. Around 1604, he began working on astronomy in order to lecture on the new star that had appeared that year.
In 1609, Galileo heard of the telescope while in Venice, and on his return, constructed one for himself. In 1610, Galileo published his telescopic discoveries in The Starry Messenger, and dedicated the four satellites of Jupiter that he had discovered to Cosimo II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, naming them 'the Medicean stars'.
In The Starry Messenger, in addition to the satellites of Jupiter, Galileo reported that the milky-way was a collection of stars and how the moon in fact had a ragged surface like earth. The Starry Messenger was a sensational success, and Galileo became well known throughout Europe. In 1611, Galileo traveled to Rome, where the Collegio Romano, at the behest of Robert Bellarmino, confirmed Galileo's findings. Frederico Cesi hosted a banquet in honour of Galileo, and was elected to Cesi's 'Accademia dei Lincei' (Academy of the Lynxes). In Rome, Galileo also met Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, who later sided with him on the controversy over floating bodies at a court dinner in Florence.One morning in 1613, at breakfast, Cosimo de' Medici and his mother, the Grand Duchess Christina began discussing the truth of Jupiter's satellites. Benedetto Castelli, Galileo's student, who was present, asked Galileo to comment on the central point of that conversation Ăś the conflict between the Bible and the heliocentric doctrine. The reply was the famous 'Letter to Grand Duchess Christina' which circulated widely in manuscript form at the time. In it, Galileo famously declared that the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Galileo's belief in the truth of the Copernican hypothesis alarmed Dominicans such as Tommaso Caccini and Niccolo Lorini, and the Inquisition examined Galileo's letter to Christina. Thus began Galileo's trouble with the Catholic Church.
Galileo's run-in with the Church is famous to this day, though often over-romanticized or misunderstood. For instance, his declaration in the wake of the condemnation: 'And yet the earth still moves!' is apocryphal. It is therefore important to appreciate the precise nature of the affair.
There were two occasions (1616 and 1632) when Galileo was called to Rome over the truth of Copernicus' theory. As a result of inspecting Galileo's letter, in February 1616, it was agreed by the Inquisition that 1) the immobility of the Sun at the centre of the universe was absurd in philosophy and formally heretical, and that 2) the mobility of Earth was absurd in philosophy and at least erroneous in theology.
At the order of the Pope, Galileo was then summoned (February 1616) by Robert Bellarmino to be cautioned against speaking out on behalf of the Copernican claim. Rumours, however, quickly began to circulate that Galileo had been condemned and prosecuted. In defence, Galileo secured from Bellarmino a letter stating that this was not the case but that he had had been notified of the Papal decision to censor Copernicus' De Revolutionibus because a heliostatic claim was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.
Galileo duly kept away from writing on cosmological matters, concentrating instead, on applying his discovery of Jupiter's satellites for determining longitude at sea. In 1623 he wrote the Assayer, published by the Academy of the Lynxes and dedicated to Barberini. There, Galileo famously wrote:
Philosophy is written in this grand book - the universe - which stands continuously open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth. (As quoted by Machamer in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, pp.64f.)
His sympathizer and patron Barberini had just been elected Pope, as Urban VIII. In 1624 Galileo had an audience with the Pope, who favourably received the Assayer. In the meetings he had with the Pope, Galileo believed he was encouraged to discuss the Copernican theory so long as it was treated as an hypothesis and began to compose the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, which was published in 1632 and dedicated to the Grand Duke. The work caused a furore because Galileo seemed to have gone against the injunction not to advocate the physical truth of Copernicus' claim. The sale of the book was suspended six months after its publication.
In September 1632, Galileo was summoned to Rome, where he arrived in January 1633. First the inquisitors tried to get Galileo to admit that he had earlier been officially banned from teaching Copernicus' theory as true, but Galileo produced Bellarmine's letter to contradict this. By then, both Bellarmine (1621) and Cesi (1630) were dead, and Galileo had few powerful patrons left to defend him. A plea bargain to plead guilty to a lesser charge was scuppered, however, when Urban VIII decided in June that Galileo should be imprisoned for life. Galileo was then interrogated under threat of torture, and made to abjure the 'vehement suspicion of heresy'. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.and not death because he recanted his position. Galileo spent the rest of his life at his home at Arcetri, under house arrest with the archbishop of Siena. Pleas for pardons or for medical treatment were refused.
What really happened was that the Church tried to kill of the theories of Copernicus because they directly confronted doctrine. We know today that these theories were indeed correct. Francis, You make the point that something was just an hypothesis, all science initially is Just an hypothesis. This would include the germ theory!
What I see happening today as whitnesed by the actions of the Lincoln Bishop and rubber-stamped in Rome is a Church Hierarchy that will not listen to anyone other than themselves. It is hard for them to understand that the more we know, the more we really have to learn. In your fifth point you confuse psychological rehabilitation with the growth and development of philosophical, theological and scientific systems development.
May we have peace and understanding,
rdp
PS It has been know in the medical field for over 50 years that a pedophile is nearly impossible to safely rehabilitate. Scientific theories and understanding are always growing and so must the theology and philosophy grow to explain them.
This is a reply to the whole
This is a reply to the whole chain of replies to date rather than just to Francis above.
To assume that those who belong to CTA have walked away from the Church (excommunicated themselves) is a rash judgment as far as I am concerned. As has been pointed out by several respondents, the church has often excommunicated members only to have to retract such excommunication years later. (How many apologies for such excommunications did JPII alone make in his reign?)
Rather, I think that CTA is taking a stand to ask the church to consider other possibilities that they see as good for the church. I assume that some would be good, and others not so good.
To take such a stand and challenge the leadership can be/ and often is is the mark of someone who loves the church. In that self-same love of the church, they also see ways the church can and should improve. They know that others will/and do disagree with them. But they are also convinced enough to put themselves on the line to ask the church to consider the change.
To be excommunicated may also be the only course they have to choose to be saved. To become passive and not challenge would be to deny and/or reject the good they see--to go against their conscience. Such a choice of action would lead to damnation, not salvation.
If we are to grow as a church, we would take seriously challenges that groups such as CTA pose. Only then can we grow as a church and as God's people.
This does not mean that we will accept all that they propose. But it does require us to be open, to listen, to discuss, to consider, and to incorporate at least some of what is proposed.
[A little side note: if I remember right from the newspaper accounts, when Bsp. Buskelwitz (sic) first excommunicated the groups, he also included BSA and GSA groups as well as some other well respected groups. I don't know what this also indicates about the excommunications that are still in the news.]
Thoughts on
Thoughts on excommunication.
One day, four men brought a paralyzed man to Jesus. There was a crowd around the house where Jesus was, but their friend meant enough to them that they climbed up on the roof, hoisted him up with them, and, making a hole in the roof, lowered him into the presence of Jesus. Jesus, seeing THEIR faith, said to the man, “Your sins are forgiven.” I suspect that was about the last thing the man expected to hear as well as being the last thing on his mind. He wanted to be able to walk. He neither admitted sinning, asked forgiveness nor expressed repentance. At that time, the Jews made no distinction between moral and physical evil and so it was easy to identify a sick person as also being a sinner. Forgiving sins and healing were closely related. At any rate, Jesus forgave his sins and then, to prove he had the authority to do so, told him to get up and walk. He did not tell the man to sin no more, but to get up, take his mat, and walk. We have no idea where the man walked after that experience.
Jesus was often criticized for associating with tax collectors and sinners. He even sat at table and ate with them. Given the importance of a meal in both Judaism and Christianity, there is not only food on the table but food for thought here.
When questioned about this association, Jesus replied it was not the well who needed a physician but the sick. He went on to say he had come to call sinners, not the self-righteous. It would make sense if he had said not the righteous, but why did he say not the self-righteous. It is a virtue to be righteous, but self-righteous is an entirely different matter. Was it that Jesus held out hope for sinners but saw the self-righteous, because they were so sure they were righteous that there was little chance of changing their minds, as almost beyond hope? I don’t know, but the statement has always left me wondering.
At any rate, Jesus was always ready to forgive. He associated with sinners in the hope he could call them to himself. I am sure there were those who came to believe in him and those who did not. But, HE CONTINUED TO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM AND TO COME TO TABLE WITH THEM.
Now, assuming for the sake of argument that these groups and individuals who have been excommunicated or excommunicated themselves are truly sinners, could it be that OUR faith, bringing them to the table, bringing them into the presence of our Lord, might just be the occasion of their conversion?
Yes, there are texts in the Gospel that can be used to justify excommunication, but, Ecce homo! Look at Jesus; look at his life; see how he treated sinners, and then go and do likewise.
Bob, I like your reflection
Bob, I like your reflection and I agree that "OUR faith, bringing them to the table, bringing them into the presence of our Lord, might just be the occasion of their conversion?" However the CTA folks have to be willing to acknowledge that their dissension from Church teachings is really sinful and has their souls in a very twisted state, not too unlike the paralytics twisted body and soul from certain sins. The paralytic wanted to be healed; they, too, have to want to be healed of their feverish and rebellious state. If they do not want to eat the same food at the same table we're eating from, how do we bring them to the table? We cannot. Remember the story of some of Jesus' disciples in St. John's gospel in chapter 6. Recall that when Jesus told them that "unless you my Body and drink my blood you'll have no life in you," they walked away because they found these sayings hard to hear. Well, so, too do the CTA folks find Our Lord's present teachings too hard. Just as Jesus did not chase after those disciples and try to dialogue with them to help them convert, so too must we let our CTA brothers and sisters go their own way. In this regard, we are acting very much like our Saviour in that we are respecting our brothers and sisters to go their own way.
You say that we must "look at Jesus; look at his life and see how he treated sinners and then go and do likewise." In regard to our CTA brothers I believe our Lord would simply say "Let them go their own way for now. But pray that
they will have a change of heart and when they return like the prodigal son, welcome them with open arms and throw a feast for them. Why? becasue your CTA brothers and sisters were lost in the deserts of self righteousness and hard heartedness; in the dark valleys of disobedience they were filled with conflict. But now, because of my prayers and yours, they have come home. Let them enter my fields of peace, joy, obedience and charity. After they have daily toiled in these fields once again, their hearts will become more like mine. And then, after they have received my great Medicine of Sacramental Reconciliation, the Medicine of Life that I bought and paid for with my supreme act of Love on the Cross, then I will once again nourish their humble souls at my Eucharistic Altar of Life, at my Banquet of Heavenly Love.
Lenten peace to all.
Ohevin
I think that thie decision
I think that thie decision by the Lincoln Bishop and the Roman authorities is very problematical. The men of our church have made many errors. We can go back to Galileo when Catholic teaching was the centrality of man in the Universe. It can be argued that it was never infallible teaching but never the less Galileo had to retract his observations and those of Copernicus or be executed. Today it is taught that life begins with the uniting of egg and sperm, but we know that the beginnings of life in the cloned sheep, Dolly, had no functional egg or sperm. We also know that the leadership in our church has been particularly poor as of late as witnessed by the sexual scandals and by the Bishops lack of action to rid the church of the problematic priests. We can only assume that the poor leadership goes right to the top when a Cardinal that was very culpable in this scandal, Father Law, is given a cushy job in Rome. Faith without questions is really no faith at all. It is becoming a sheep and in our case a sheep under very poor leadership. May we have peace and understanding!
I quite concur as to the
I quite concur as to the "problematical" state if episcopal-decisioning. It very much seems that the Bruskevitz-excommunication fracas is a fragment phenomenon of the supernovae burnout of the dominion-theology star. It is a sorry scenario but perhaps an inevitable one. The "good" bishop is a carryover of Pope John Paul II's litmus-testing policy of appointing Vatican I minded prelates (radically opposed to Vatican II liberation theology). Imperial theology doesn't easily give up its dominion habits nor does "royalty" easily surrender accustomed privileges of power and prestige. However, the inevitability of history will prevail over histrionics. God is Light opening to each generation the newness of the Way, Truth and Life. How curious and politically mundane that the Vatican "supreme court" finds that it is without jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. Where does the "buck" stop in church? Apparently in the hands of the bishops (or of the laity?). Or does the pope like the president have the power of "forgiveness"?
R. Dennis Porch, your
R. Dennis Porch, your comment confuses me. Can you please clarify a few things:
1) It is my understanding that some believe human life begins with the "uniting of egg and sperm" because that is the point at which a zygote is created -- and a zygote, unlike an individual sperm and an individual egg, has the potential to grow into a full grown adult. It is accidental (and I use that in a Thomistic sense) that it is the uniting of the egg and sperm that creates the zygote. That being the case, how exactly does the cloning of Dolly present a difficulty to this understanding? And if this is such a problem, why reference Dolly and not the problem of asexual reproduction in nature more generally?
2) I don't understand the logical principle by which we can "assume that poor leadership goes right to the top." It seems just as probable to me that in an organization as enormous as the Catholic Church, that there will invariably be individuals in positions of authority that make mistakes. Furthermore, what is the "top?" The Pope? The entire Vatican? Every Bishop? God Himself?
3) What does it mean to have a questioning faith? I don't think anyone would advocate that reason should abdicate its pride of place once one joins the Church. What exactly is the relationship between faith and reason?
rdp JRock, I am sorry if my
rdp
JRock,
I am sorry if my note confused you. In the early part of the church there was a struggle as to when life began and when was a soul present. Many of the early Fathers taught that it was the time of quickening or movement (@ 12 weeks.) More recently in Church history, it was taught that it was at the time of the unification of the egg and the sperm. For most of the Church history, there was no scientific term zygote, and it is still commonly taught that life begins with the uniting of the ovum with the sperm. I used the mammal Dolly precisely because she was a mammal and if life can be “created by man” with the cloning of an utter cell with a cytoevacuated egg, does that mean the soul begins then. Does man have the power to create a soul? I don’t think that either of us believes that. What it does mean is that some of the teachings of the Church were simply wrong. It is too difficult a question to say that life begins with the unification of two gametes. It is also too difficult a matter to say that the full composite of human chromosomes indicate life- then every cell would have a soul. Neither of us believe that. What is important and fearful to many is the fact that over this next hundred or hundreds of years, men will probably be cloned. Will these be soulless beings? I don’t believe that.
It was poor papal leadership not to understand the enormity of the sexual crisis and not to minister to those damaged by priests. This began at the diocese level and went all the way to the papacy. I think you understand that it was not every Bishop, and so do I, but the Bishops as a group must assume the responsibility for not speaking out and speaking out forcefully in this disgraceful situation. Those that believe that they alone have the truth of God Himself cast a false authoritarian image of the Church. They are a cult inside a much bigger organization.
To have a questioning faith is to join the Copernican world, and not to abdicate to untruth. It further means to understand that the more any of us know then the more there is to learn as we are finite beings and only God Himself knows it all.
Peace and understanding,
rdp
Henkgal, Thank you for a
Henkgal,
Thank you for a most thoughtful post. There is quite a bit of "assumption" and misrepresentation of what the so-called "excommunicated" groups stand for. Of course they don't want to walk away- as many, many others have...(or turn our backs on those who would want to come back!) Where does it say that these groups reject the 10 commandments?
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the church needs to serve its people!
Excommunication is not
Excommunication is not "shunning". As a matter of fact, being excommunicated does not absolve you of your obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and on Chrurch mandated Holy Days. Excommunication is medicinal. It is an attempt to get the excommunicant's attention and convince them to turn away from their scandalous behavior, repent, confess and come back to the Church.
If CTA is pro-choice, they should understand this situation totally. They have a choice to make, either they can be a member of Call to Action, or they can forgo the Sacraments. As a believing Catholic, being cut off from the Sacraments is a horrible state to be in, and I would do whatever it took to return to the fold.
I have heard talk of "dialog". The Bishop is the *teacher* he is not the student. Would you have a "dialog" with your physics teacher about the effects of gravity, or thermodynamic principles? Would you say you had the right to "dialog" about gravity, because in the past scientists had been wrong about the shape of the earth?
As for "following one's conscience", it has to be a *Catholic informed conscience*. Adolph Hitler followed his conscience.
Excommunication has been
Excommunication has been used & abused for centuries. It all comes down to some in the hierarchy who put power over love of God & neighbor. One of the roles of the clergy is to teach; not just with words but by example. Unfortunately, with the pedophile debacle & now the parish finance improprieties, one can only wonder if the hierarchy have a different set of moral standards for themselves vs for the rest of us.
The best teachers I have had encouraged questions & welcomed criticism. Just as scientists continue to find new answers to the universe's mysteries (often finding discoveries that refute what was once held as fact), I believe the Church continues to evolve. Despite my frustrations about the hierarchy, I continue to cherish my Catholicism for I know that this great Church of ours is on a new course. The Spirit will not be stifled.
If a teacher can't dialog,
If a teacher can't dialog, he/she is not a teacher.
According to one post from
According to one post from one unnamed source, excommunication disallows public worship. Is that not the mass?
Oh, well then it isn't so
Oh, well then it isn't so bad after all if one can still go to Mass. Being present but conspicuously absent from the communion line is something that does not go unnoticed--particularly if one is seated in the front row with one's fellow excommunicants. In Lincoln it will make the statement that one's sin is to have used one's God-given intellect to consider whether the Church functions as well as it could. At worst the "sin" was being too insistent that one was right and the Church was wrong. I doubt that anyone will end up in hell over this.
Rather than becoming
Rather than becoming indignant over the authoritarian leadership of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska--and, God forbid, inferring that it characterizes all of Catholicism—-it might be helpful to look into the mind of Bishop Bruskewitz by way of transcripts of some of his talks that can be found at http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/brown/Bishop_writings.htm.
One of these is called “The Limits of Dialogue”. He states at the beginning of this talk that he favors dialogue and toleration and that by asserting this he hopes to prevent his further statements from being misunderstood. He goes on to identify the limits he sees. He states that “dialogue cannot rationally be accepted as a permanent state of affairs, because the point of dialogue is to serve as a way in which we strive to achieve some purpose or goal” –essentially to win the argument. He believes that “there is great danger that the truth will be lost in this process” that he says favors the eloquent. He is also on guard against a “normal human tendency to trivialize things that are relatively important for the sake of compromise and consensus”.
It seems that Bishop Bruskewitz may be leading by coercion and intimidation because he cannot see beyond earthly concerns and has no firsthand awareness of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Judging from another of his talks entitled “The Development of Doctrine” wherein he states “it is necessary if we are to be adequate followers of Christ, to be linked with the See of Rome, the See of Peter, and in that linkage to be able to gaze upon the one who has gazed upon the face of Christ”, it may be that for him the Catholic Church in its present form is the closest he can get to knowing God and anything that even slightly threatens that is no trivial thing.
Bishop Bruskewitz is more to be pitied than scorned for his inability to dialogue with those who question the teachings of the church. Unlike the bishop, I could convey numerous reasons as to why some of the ideas entertained by Call To Action would be doomed to failure or be no better than the present state of affairs. Were I bishop, I would consider it a privilege to be asked to dialogue on these topics with this group. Under no circumstances would I characterize these people as "children" and treat them as I might a pet that I am training.
It is worth clarifying: it
It is worth clarifying: it is not the Bishop who excommunicated the CTA members, but rather it was they who excommunicated themselves. The Bishop merely formally recognized the reality of the situation. To join an organization such as CTA is not equivalent to being ignorant of some of the Church teachings and erring as a result of not knowing any better. Rather, one joins such an organization because he or she (presumably) has seriously studied and understands the Church teachings to a degree such that he or she is able to reject decisively certain Church teachings. At least one would hope the members of CTA have done that... Leaving that aside, if one rejects certain Church teachings the Church declares to be central to the faith, then one is de facto not a member of the Church. In other words, when one is received into the Church one has to say that he or she believes everything the Church teaches and one must continue to believe those things in order not to become and apostate. Thus, at every Mass we re-affirm our commitment to the Church's teachings when we recite the Creed.
In short, being a member of the Church is not like joining a book club where all you have to do is decide that you want to affiliate with the club and sign up, no questions asked. Rather, to be a member in good standing of the Church one must actually believe what the Church teaches.
If the members of CTA truly believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, they such an excommunication should act as a catalyst for prayer and reflection. If they truly value membership in the Church, then they will, with an open mind, take this as an opportunity to study and seek out resources to help them try to understand the Church's teaching. Regardless of whether we believe that formal excommunication is the most efficacious way for the Bishop to get the members of CTA to embark upon such a journey, we need to join the members of CTA on it with our prayers.
JRock, A gold star to you
JRock,
A gold star to you for your outstanding explanation of excommunication.
Ohevn
One can excommunicate
One can excommunicate oneself by one's active participation in abortion. One cannot excommunicate oneself by thinking that abortion could be forgiven in some cases or that legal abortion is better than illegal abortion.
When one says one believes everything the Chruch teaches, one is saying one believes that the Church is not misleading anyone with what it teaches. No one disputes the Church's teachings by considering how best to apply them in real life.
Marie, I was always taught
Marie,
I was always taught that the Church's holy teachings in all human activity are REAL LIFE.
Maybe you should question
Maybe you should question that once in a while with an open mind. Not all church teaching has been and is holy. At one time the church supported slavery and the death penalty. At one time the church taught that the earth was the centre of our universe, with the sun revolving around it. Gallileo paid the price for opposing that teaching. I and many of my generation (pre-Vatican II) were taught by many clerics that Luther was the devil-incarnate and that people who followed Luther were going straight to hell (all my friends were Lutheran!!). I point out that the church's teaching about artificial contraception has been rejected by a large majority of people, including a large majority of catholics: they decided that this ban didn't respect REAL LIFE as they knew it. I remember some German bishops and priests who taught that Hitler was God's chosen "savior" of the German Reich and its people. I could go on and on. I would suggest that we listen to church teachings with faith-filled hearts, open minds and positive attitudes, trying to discern God's words in it. A lot of church teaching is a treasury of inspiring and life-giving thought. But that doesn't mean that we can't be critical and regard all church teaching as "holy", as if by definition.
God Bless our Holy Father
God Bless our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.
'henkgal' said: "At one time the church supported slavery"
Where is the reference that this was the official teaching of the Church?
What I found were these articles:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm
Although the Church did not as vigerously oppose this injustice as strongly as it might, it is clear that it was never "supported" and was clearly denounce on several occasions.
Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)
All human activity relative
All human activity relative to salvation in Jesus Christ. I thought this was implicit in my simple post. Obviously not.
It never ceases to amaze me how critics of Holy Mother Church pull out the old laundry list of bad behavior exemplifed by bishops, priest, and laity over the centuries who qualified for the bad apples club. Of course this is always done to somehow justify their own contempt for the human element of the Holy Magisterium. What is interesting in their critique is the oft overlooked original betrayal found in Judas. Yes, even amongst the chosen twelve, one would betray our Lord, and in Judas is found the bad model of so many other bishops, priest and laity who down thru the centuries would shed a negative light on the human institution of our Lord's Church.
You say, "I would suggest that we listen to Church teachings with faith-filled hearts, open minds and positive attitudes, trying to discern God's words in it." Your statement must be contrasted with the following truth.
We know our Lord's Representative here on earth prayed to the Master of Life about this modern problem of artificial contraception. Our Lord's Representive prayed hard. He fasted. He prayed for (and with) an open heart and open mind. He prayed for discernment. He also cried to the Mother of God for Divine Assistance. Surely Mary, the ark of the new Covenant, would provide certain succor for her Son's servant on earth. And the Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, the Queen of Heaven and Earth, did come to her Sons's aide because the Master of Life heard this poor man's crying plea to Heaven for help. Then our Beloved Saviour generously opened His Heavenly Treasury and filled His Holy Pontiff with Wisdom and Charity to give to His impoverished children on earth. The Most Holy Triune God was most generous with the pearls of wisdom given to His Voice. In fact, a great Hosanna was sung by all the Heavenly inhabitants of angels, saints and beautific souls who delighted in the New Life given to the People of God. Christ the King then had his earthly Vicar provide this spiritual food in HUMANAE VITAE to His pilgrim Church on earth. Our Lord's Holy Pontiff then tried to nourish God's children with this Real Life food. Christ' servant spoke Jesus' holy words on how Sacramental Holy Matrimony is truly "sacred and holy" when open "to bring forth life!" But did our Lord's children receive this heavenly food with an open mind and heart, with positive attitude? NO! They rejected The Holy Triune God's formulae for right living. Instead a "golden calf of free sex" was built by a majority of God's children and they adored it. And the majority continue to live in darkness. And Jesus' Holy Voice on earth cries out daily, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
I pray the majority will some day soon wake up like the prodigal son . . . . . .
Peace to all.
Ohevin
bonafide member of the pre-Vatican II generation
Peter, the rock, also
Peter, the rock, also betrayed Jesus the same night as Judas. All the male apostles but one, hid to save their own skins, while the women were with Him every step of the way, fearless, and steadfast.
I don't get too bent out of shape with the 'selfish, save your own skins, attitudes of the hierarchy. The example for this was set during passion week. It's too bad more preference wasn't given to the example of the women involved in the story.
I also think their were many heart felt prayers offered to heaven by the 52 memebers of the pontifical commission studying the birth control issue who came up with an entirely different answer.
What it seems you mean is
What it seems you mean is that the Church has every nuance of life covered in detail by its teachings, but it does not. If it did, it would be cult.
As it is, this insistance upon controlling what organizations Catholics may join is very cultlike. Who is to say that Catholics do not bring a "Catholic perspective" to organizations they join and serve to bring others into the faith by their involvement with supposed enemies of the Church?
It would seem that the
It would seem that the Church is morally inconsistent when, on the one hand,it identifies the whole Church as inclusive of the laity (Vatican II), who by their own right of birth and baptism contribute to the moral sense of the faithful, and on the other hand refuses to take the laity seriously. The Church has yet to accommodate this new awareness and find a way of hearing what the laity has to contribute, instead of reverting to its old habit of treating the laity as mindless children whose only responsibility is to say "yes" father, play, pray and obey, and think no more about it.
What you are really
What you are really suggesting is that you believe the laity should be making decisions about the Sacramental life of the Church. In fact, it is the Lord Himself who is not willing to accomodate the laity in the decision making of ecclesiastical affairs. Sorry to be the one to inform you, Sylvester, but our Lord will not grant to you, me, or the laity, this God given responsibility reserved Sacramentally for His chosen Priesthood as established in the selection of the 12 Apostles.
As to our contributing to a moral sense of the faith, our Lord would have you and I hold dear to our hearts this singular and primary concern: cooperate with His Bride here on earth in such a way so as to prepare our souls daily for eternal salvation. If you know of any awareness of the faith on our part that is a greater contribution than this, then I would certainly like to know. In fact, the most meaningful contribution that you or I can bring to the Church, in spite of the Church's unaccomodating our desire to drive the car sort a speak, is our our humble, contrite and obedient hearts. The second greatest contribution after this is to brings others to know our Lord's Bride here on earth with the same virtue. Isn't that such a beautiful invitation? What more could you or I possibly want? Or why would we want any more than this?
Whoever taught you that Vatican II held a special inclusive role for you, a role that includes a special awareness to help govern Christ Church on earth, this new awareness of the faith that was unknown to the the Catholic laity the previous 1,960 years, did a real disservice to you. In fact, the supreme awareness of faith in the Lord is summed up in Jesus' simple directive, "unless you become like little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Now that's the type of inclusiveness I'm talking about!
Peace to all.
Ohevin
"What you are really
"What you are really suggesting is that you believe the laity should be making decisions about the Sacramental life of the Church." Not independently as you seem to suggest I am saying. The ecclesiology of Vatican II identifies Church as the "People of God". I consider myself and you one of those "church people". By right of belonging we have responsibilities to the wellbeing of the Church, which means challenging hierarchy when it is unfaithful in its moral obligations, (e.g., covering up clerical abuses). I was an adult witness to the whole event of Vatican II and with prior theological background.
Everyone is born for his/her lifetime to be learner (Disciple) and teacher (Apostle). The moral obligation of Convenant, of being Disciple and Apostle, identifies with the moral obligation of "being church" and of the commission of Jesus, "Go and teach the whole world" in the Name of Trinity.
The bishop of Lincoln,
The bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska is not the Church. He is simply wrong in treating membership in organizations that are not in perfect agreement with the Church's moral imperatives as mortal sin. To my knowledge there has been no specific ruling from the Vatican as to the sinfulness of these memberships, but only rulings on legal technicalities pertaining to a bishop's authority--as opposed to his competence.
I agree that laity governing the Church was not the goal of Vatican II. However, within the Canon Law of the Church, there are provisions that quite nearly require the laity to make their views known.
It seems to me that at the heart of the controversy over Bishop Burskewitz's leadership is his disrespect of the laity. Bishops have an obligation to clarify to the intellectual satisfaction of the laity everything the Church teaches, including the intent of Vatican II. If they did this, then perhaps those identifying themselves as Vatican I Catholics would come to understand that nothing has been lost or discarded and those who expect more from Vatican II than was intended will come to appreciate it for what it has accomplished instead of worrying about what it could or should have done.
Consider that no other bishop's have made the same determination that Bishop Burskewtiz has. They have my sympathy for having to endure all the criticism that this has generated. Furthermore, I could not be happier with the bishop of our diocese, nor with the priests in our community.
It would seem that there is
It would seem that there is a worldwide church known as the Catholic Church. Hidden inside this church is something called a Catholic cult. The Catholic Church is a big one and has room for a Catholic cult (which I have sensed so many times in these pages).
Erv Sanders
But you were not taught that
But you were not taught that the Church's moral teachings=public policy.
It is worth clarifying:
It is worth clarifying: "self-excommunication" (huh?) is a sign that control responses from an institution won't work.
Pity the Pope! A young
Pity the Pope!
A young friend of mine commented years ago: "No-one believes exactly everything." Is this not true? Anyone else remember Cardinal Ottaviani just after Vatican II? I cannot now recall what he jibbed at, but jib he did. So, pity the pope: he's the only one who, presumably, has to believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church currently teaches. It takes some doing!
Englishwoman
Yes...one of the reasons
Yes...one of the reasons that the magisterium developed a hierarchy of teachings.
Faith Journey, I domt know
Faith Journey,
I domt know why you think these Catholics have been treated unjustly, Call to Action openly rejects church teaching, the command to explell those, who, after due warning, refuse to accept church teaching is given time and again in the New Testament, see Chapter five of First Corinthians, Chapter 16 of Romans and the commands from Ourl Ord that I mentioned in my reply to Kay.
In none of these scripture passages is any mention made of the relative education levels of the clergy and laity, in fact, the fist command was given when most of the apostles were humble fishermen.
after due warning... YES,
after due warning... YES, people who ask questions, who challenge something that is or is supposed to be church teaching, get a warning by certain clerics. No dialogue, but a warning, a threat (as I once received for having questions about same-sex mariage...I was threatened with excommunication, which I ignored; I keep asking questions.) A warning and then a threat and then expulsion. Way to go, that's the Jesus way. Right?
The catholic church is about 2000 years old. Read it's history and see how much has changed, mostly on account of people who asked questions, who challenged certain teachings. I believe that the Holy Spirit often (not necessarily always) speaks to us also through these people; the Holy Spirit doesn't live in Rome only, or only in some bishop's house). I would suppose that you, oututhubox, would scandalize someone from, let's say the 15th century, by the way you live your christian faith, by what you believe (like that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth as the Holy Book tells us, that human sperm is not a humunculus, etc.). The church at one time taught the rightness of slavery; people eventually challenged that and you know what happened. Same with the death penalty. Eating meat on Fridays: mortal sin, you go to hell unless... I could go on and on.
Very few things in the catholic faith are carved in stone, as church history shows, because people ask questions, because they challenge certain teachings, and that's why you and I live our faith different from the way our ancestors did. "Call to Action" should NOT be threatened with sanctions, should NOT be intimidated. They should be welcomed and blessed, but NOT without their membership also being challenged through open-minded dialogue (and not via a "dialogue" with someone who has already made up his/her mind that the other party has it all wrong).
Kay, You ask where in
Kay,
You ask where in Jesus' teachings the idea that member sof the church should be shunned is found? You might start with Matthew 18 where he commands that those who refuse to head the rebukes of church leaders are to be treated as heathen. You might also take a look at the first three chapters of Revelations, where Jesus praises those churches which have taken a storng stand against heretics and calls to repentance those churches which have allowed heretics to remain members.
Excommunication is not something the church has dreamed up, its part of the commands Jesus gave to hios church.
Was not the Gentile woman of
Was not the Gentile woman of Scriptures considered a heathen? Is she not the one who pointed out to Jesus that his mission was not only to the Jews? So, if we go back to the interesting little vignette between the Gentile woman and Jesus, we see how he treated the heathen. Doesn't sound like your version. He didn't shun her. And he didn't just tolerate her. He teased with her, intellectual play that was highlighted by the gospel writers because it was so important to understand Jesus' mission to the world. He learned something about his own mission from his verbal play with her.
You can go on and on with ideas about excommunication and who deserves it, but it has nothing to do with God's judgment or mercy. In the end there is no link and the Church has never made such a claim, because it can't. The questions at judgment are the same for the communicant and the ex-communicant: When I was hungry,...
I have personally nothing to
I have personally nothing to do with this, but I would just shrug my shoulders and say," Who cares what those men in high places say and do." I see this issue once again as a big disconnect between what many church leaders say and do and what Jesus preached and stood for. When I die, God will judge me, not some bishop or cardinal; not even the Pope.
Kay, please see Matthew 18,
Kay,
please see Matthew 18, verses 15 to 17:
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."
and also Mathew 16:18
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
excommunication is tough love
Mike
When a bishop resorts to
When a bishop resorts to excommunication, then he is admitting that his teaching has failed.
YES, Marie R., he has failed
YES, Marie R., he has failed in his teaching. Right on! Another "trick" is the "fear factor". This is used by many clerics. The bishop of my diocese is a master in fear mongering. He (and others) blame all sorts of disasters on for example, same-sex marriage, often pointing to Holland as an example of immorality and a society that has gone down the drain in a moral sense (I am from Holland and all my family lives there; they're all good Christian people!). But if you ask these fear mongering clerics to put the peer-reviewed and generally accepted and respected data on the table in support of their views
, you don't get much of an answer, except that they often demonize the messenger rather than focus on the message.
Threatening with excommunication and fear mongering are no ways to reach the hearts and minds of people. Jesus never threatened anybody as far as I know. He tried to persuade gently by word and example, and if somebody rejected Him, He allowed this person that option. But Jesus had no mercy for hypocrites and people who tied heavy burdens on other people's backs while they themselves felt absolved from carrying these burdens. Just some thoughts.
Bishop Bruskewitz failed
Bishop Bruskewitz failed with Call to Action folks just our Beloved Jesus failed to teach some of the Jews that "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you have no life in you." They walked walked away because this was a "hard saying." The Call to Action folks have simply walked away from the "hard teachings" that our Lord is humbly asking His followers to accept today. Perhaps their time away from the true Eucharistic table of the Lord's will give them time to reconsider the error of their ways. We can only hope and pray so.
Remembe man, thou art dust and unto dust thou shall return.
Peace to all.
Ohevin
Does the vatican's washing
Does the vatican's washing it's hands of the excommunication not remind anyone of the Katrina related remark 'you're doing a great job there brownie'
When a bishop resorts to
When a bishop resorts to excommunication he closes the channels of communication that might lead to those who do not agree with a particular teaching to understand it in such a way that they can come to agree with it. What Bishop Bruskewitz is teaching by excommunicating people for their memberships in various organizations is that obedience is all that the Church requires of its members. This is a false teaching for which the bishop should be corrected and may already have been corrected; it may be why he has issued this "invitation" to those he excommunicated.
And more than that, THIS
And more than that, THIS bishop never opened the channels of communication to start with...
If it is true that the
If it is true that the bishop did not open the lines of communication then he is the one who errs. In the first place, many of the beliefs of CTA are common to many catholics and I'm sure that CTA does not require or expect adherence to everything that it has posted as positions. CTA is more like a political party and exists almost as an opposition party.People who promote as doctrines beliefs that are contrary to the ten commandments excommunicate themselves while those who advocate dialogue about certain things are doing good. The bishop who does not communicate, teach and lead but depends on edict and 'anathema' should be under severe scrutiny from Rome. Formation of conscience is a result of teaching,studying, praying and consideration of the church's position. It is hard to believe that anyone who promotes abortion etc can not excommunicate himself but on the other hand St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the infusion of the soul or breath of life being given to an embryo at conception.
On the other hand the church's fight against abortion has been anemic at best. There has been a lot of talk and condemnation but I know of a diocese who gave $500 to 'birthright'[Isn't that generous?} and I know a parish that gave $50 dollars to 'right to life' for the year. [$50 was the funding for the library as well] Money is not the answer but it is an indication of how important one considers the problem. Anemic leadership is not leadership but neither is excommunication. Life is the answer.
Charley.
This is what we know on
This is what we know on these pagees: This bishop did not open lines of communication. He's never made the claim he did, as far as is known. When CTA Nebraska advised him of their formation (it's not like he couldn't find them :0)), he sent an order forth. He didn't seem able to deliver it in person (what's that about?). What his paper did do was claim that Nebraska CTA stood in opposition to the dogma of the Incarnation, I think it was, if you can imagine, which they immediately said was untrue, and certainly doesn't show up in anything I've found. In fact, they don't comment on dogma at all. His paper did not issue a retraction or apology for the "mistake".
NOTE FROM CAFE MANAGEMENT:
NOTE FROM CAFE MANAGEMENT: The comment threads on this table are getting too unweildy, so I am closing conversations here. If someone wants to continue any of these threads, start a new table.
--Dennis Coday
NCR web site coordinator