Bishops meet: Leadership from a flock of shepherds

I tend to believe the bishops were very pastoral in the way they have dealt with sensitive issues. They rarely use divisive language but teach with clarity.

Also, I am so tired of hearing about the number of bishops who have spoken out on Notre Dame for the following reason:

This is not the Episcopal Church. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Only one bishop had to speak on the issue, the local ordinary, Bishop D'Arcy. Whether 80, 200+, or no bishops said anything means nothing. That is not their diocese.

Let's all pray for our shepherds as they meet in San Antonio.

You are right that it is not their personal property, but they are responsible for teaching and guiding the diocese. They are the final authority for that region, though answerable to the Holy See. The laity and the clergy in that diocese owe them their allegiance

As a seminarian, I have a fair amount of dealings with diocesan priests. With almost no exception, we support our bishops and, unless they ordered something that was canonically or morally incorrect, we give him obedience.

As a faithful Catholic (from birth, by the way), I have to respectfully disagree with JF. We, the laity, do not owe blind obedience to our pastors, bishops and Pope - that type of teaching is what led to the abuses of children here and in Ireland. We owe only God that level of allegience. To all others, we owe respect and that is all. I do not always agree with what my parish priest says nor do I always agree with my bishop's pronoucements but I do always show them the respect due to a Church official. ALthough many of them would like to deny it, our clergy are fallible human beings, just as we all are - they can, and do, make mistakes in intepretation and in application of God's Word. Each of us, laity and clergy alike, are called to use our discernment, to study and grow in faith. The Catholic Church into which I was born is not the same Church of today because of Vatican II and the work of so many clergy and laity over the years. To assume that we should all return the ignorant sheep-like demeanor that was expected of the laity before the Second Vatican Council is not only ill advised but stupid. Whether the clergy like it or not, we are a power within the Church, we form our own opinions - albeit informed by Church teaching, and we will not be religated to a secondary role so that those who have abused their power can continue to do so.

The heirarchy of the Church needs to do some serious self-examination and find a way to learn the humility and compassion of Christ - who is SUPPOSED to be their model - before the entire thing falls apart. Our Church as suffered so many blows recently and has done nothing to address the very real criticisms. We need to get our house in order so that we can once again speak with moral authority to the rest of the world.

Almost as if we are called to an informed conscience...oh wait we are and that too is in the Catechism.

I, for one, would like to revisit what worked for the early church, and yes, I mean the early Catholic Church but then people would have to acknowledge that we have changed many times over the years.

JF talks about allegiance to the local ordinary. What do you owe
him when he is shown to be an obvious liar in the 'gotcha' game of
a formal court deposition? The ordinary here 'sloughed' it off with
the 'party' line that he hadn't heard of such a thing before the
early 1980s. He has no credibility here and with many who heard
about this - though not the magnitude - as early as the early 1960s.

Excellent post, David. Here is some background and context that would support your points to the US bishops - from a presentation by John O'Malley, SJ from his book - What Really Happened at Vatican II?
http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/John_OMalley_talk.doc

Highlights:
So one of the great shocks, when the Council first opened, was for Catholics to find out that there were all these disagreements; and soon there emerged two parties, you might say, which I call the majority and the minority – sometimes called the liberals and the conservatives; sometimes called the progressive and the conservatives. Those terms are okay, but they have ideological baggage; so I prefer majority and minority. Interesting about the majority, it’s a real overwhelming cascade majority. It’s roughly 85 to 90 percent of all crucial votes, and the minority 10, 12, 15 percent; so it’s a very lopsided contest in terms of sheer quantity and where people are. So that’s one of the first things it does, because as I say, it refreshes all of our memories and tells a story that many people have never heard before.

I think maybe one of the most important things the book does, which other books have not really done – but many books about the Council sort of begin in 1959, or that begin in 1962 – I like to really put this in the BIG context of the Catholic Church; so that’s what I tried to provide very briefly, but still I think in an incisive way. So what’s the first big perspective on a big meeting? How does this Council fit with the other councils? So a short passage there, for instance, the first eight councils were called by laymen or a laywoman, the Empress Irene, for one of them held in the East. The language was Greek, very little papal participation, by and large; and then the rest in the West, and so forth; so that big difference, and then the different medieval councils, until we get to Trent, and so forth – so trying to show in that sense how Vatican II is alike and different from other councils. For instance, the wonderful Council of Trent, how many bishops opened the Council of Trent? How about a guess? 500? 200? You’re going in the right direction. Believe it or not, 200 bishops at maximum, and practically all of them were from Italy, Spain or Portugal. So it’s quite different from Vatican II. So that context. And then the relationship of the popes to the councils; but then, especially, what I call the long nineteenth century.

No one is more divisive and ugly then the dissenters who have caused so much of our problems and disgraces. We are now, finally, returning to sanity. The silly times are over, thank God.

Your Name,
There will always be the tares among the wheat. What I mean is that there is a real restoration of orthodoxy and discipline that is going on right now. We are getting back on the right track. I will grant it could be faster, but things are getting better. The point of the article though is that some want us to go back to the failed dissent of the past. That is not going to happen.
Fr. J

"I tend to believe the bishops were very pastoral in the way they have dealt with sensitive issues."

Really?

Just what is needed in the RCC today, untra-conservative, emasculated individuals who, as seminarians, are incapable of forming an intelligent and independent thought at the same time.

JF seems to have forgotten about the eighty or so priests from the Boston Archdiocese who signed a letter of no confidence in Archbishop Bernard Cardinal Law and sent the letter to the Apostolic Delegate which ultimately led to Law's resignation notwithstanding protestations to the contrary. He also seems to have conveniently forgotten the letters, depositions etc., which have been made public from Law and his bishops which contradict their self-serving statements to the press.

In 2002 a good two-thirds of the then sitting bishops were complicit in the cover-up of known sexually abusive priests, two-thirds.

I suggest, JF, that you read a little more of what is posted from major newspapers and journals worldwide about the abuse of authority and position by our bishops.

the smoke of satan is still very much in residence in our church
There is nothing new in this Was not Judas one of the 12 Jesus prepared us for everything that was to come and warned us there would be wolves in sheep's clothing We must persevere with prayer and pennance and live in the love of Christ and be His instrument in our daily lives