[PICTURED/OREGONLIVE]: Jane Rickenbaugh practices sacred dance prior to Sunday’s boycott of Holy Mass and public protest in downtown Portland, Oregon.]
Ashtoreth Rising: Medieval circle dances to some mythical ancient pole goddess won’t “magickly” empower confused laity. It will, however, help in furthering empower ‘the spirit of disobedience’ guiding the women priest movement into grave sin and self-excommunications. Video and Pics follow…
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
END OF POST
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information, Contact:
Bud Bunce (503) 233-8373
bbunce@archdpdx.org
Respect Life Sunday set for October 3
Catholic parishes in western Oregon will celebrate Respect Life Sunday on October 3. That Sunday will mark the beginning of a month long observance of promoting respect for life from conception to natural death. The theme for this year is “The measure of love is to love without measure.” Archbishop John G. Vlazny will mark the occasion with a Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception on Sunday, October 3 at 11:00 am.
The Respect Life Program was adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1972. It promotes the Church’s teaching on the value and dignity of human life to the Catholic community and to the wider community. It combines education, prayer, service and advocacy. The topics addressed this year include:
* the death penalty and Divine Mercy
* end of life care
* infertility treatments in line with church teaching
* sexual trafficking
* population control
* depression and suicide among youth
* the promise of pro-life youth
At the request of Pope Benedict XVI, all bishops around the world will join with their parishioners in the Advent season to pray for respect of human life. Archbishop Vlazny will celebrate Mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral on December 5, 2010 at 11:00 am. The Mass will join with others around the globe to witness that we are a “people of life.”
What follows is the full text of the teaching on homosexuality according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997).
Full Text of Catholic Catechism Regarding Homosexuality – 1997
#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
END OF POST
VISIT THE SOURCE: Catholic Culture
Intimations of Immortality
by Dr. Jeff Mirus
When I was growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s, my world was a Christian world, at least nominally. My earliest efforts at apologetics were all designed to explain the “oddities” of the Catholic Faith to Protestants, and to show why their version of certain Christian ideas was wrong while the Catholic version was right. Since then much has changed. Now we are just as likely to be starting from scratch with people who don’t accept any version of Christianity, or perhaps any serious version of God either.
So from time to time we may profit from reviewing some of the reasons people ought to be interested in God, and especially interested in seeking a revelation from God that can set us on the right path. While people are often brought to a serious examination of the existence of God and the truth of the Christian Faith through personal experiences—whether tragic or triumphant—there are also some intellectual starting points that can get us wondering about these things. I’ll briefly review four of them here.
Our Own Sense of Continuation
There are several indicators of the existence of an immaterial, intellective soul that is necessarily immortal, but the one that impacts us most is simply our own sense of identity and our continuation in that identity. There is no evidence that any other creature has such a sense, that any other bodily creature understands itself as a unique individual with an identity which “ought” to continue beyond the vicissitudes of this earthly life. And no other creature manifests anything like a religious sense.
It is otherwise with us. No matter what age we are, no matter how many changes and struggles we’ve lived through, no matter how many times our cells have died and been replaced in the constant cycle of growth and decay, we still think of ourselves as “ourselves”. I look out from a 62 year-old body feeling exactly like the same “me” who was once fifteen. I am astonished that I should be old, and that life should be drawing inexorably to its close. This is unfathomable; it is a contradiction of everything I instinctively feel about myself. I cannot imagine my own non-existence. I cannot imagine a time when I will be unable to reflect on myself, on who I am. So it is with every man and woman who has ever lived.
Ralph McInerny, in his memoir of his life at Notre Dame (see I Alone Have Escaped to Tell You) makes the telling statement that even after his beloved wife of 50 years died he went on each day feeling immortal. That captures what it means to be human very well. We expect to continue as ourselves, and this leads us inescapably to ponder whether we have a persistent spiritual identity capable of transcending our current bodily existence. This in turn opens our minds to a spiritual world, and to the possibility of a God who is the very ground of our being. As the expression goes, nature abhors a vacuum. If we instinctively expect continuation, yearn for continuation, and seek continuation, then this is reason enough to presume that we will continue, and to examine carefully the question of whether in fact what our instincts tell us is so, and how this can be.
Our Perception of the World
Another profitable line of thought which is very near to us arises from our normal reactions to the world around us. There are at least two questions concerning our experience of the world which strike most of us fairly forcefully in a rather philosophical way. The first is the question of where it all came from. Ultimately, the human mind is not satisfied with the idea that the universe is eternal (which is far harder to believe than that an eternal God created it, given that everything we know about the material world suggests that it is contingent). Nor are we satisfied with the idea that the universe “just happened”, a concept which makes no logical sense to anyone who can think his way out of a paper bag.
It is not even too much to say, I think, that the human mind tends to be unsatisfied with the notion that the world could have evolved randomly from some primordial chemicals without any teleology (or tendency toward an end) having been built into it from the beginning. On the one hand, pure atheistic evolutionism simply pushes the God question beneath a few more layers of cosmic dust. On the other, the imagination has to stretch farther to see the plausibility of atheistic evolutionary theory than it does to see the plausibility of an uncaused Cause. We don’t claim to be able to encompass the Cause in our minds; but logic drives us to assume Its existence. Thus the questions “Where did this come from?” and “How was it designed?” set both the human mind and the human heart to work.
The other obvious question is why, in such a highly ordered universe, so many things are out of sync. How is it that the law of the jungle rules the beasts, that natural disasters occur, that men mistreat each other, that we lack so much in equality, justice and peace? No sooner does our experience of reality enable us to see how things are supposed to work than it shows us the proverbial sticky wicket. It is almost as if something that began flawlessly has somehow been broken, but we don’t see how. In Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton explains that the doctrine of Original Sin fit his experience of reality perfectly, and Blessed John Henry Newman saw things exactly the same way. We anticipate in this Christian doctrine the answer to the question, but the question itself should at least prompt us to seek an answer.
Our Sense of Justice
In An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Newman also offered a third line of thought, a highly developed argument based on the personal conscience (see Newman’s Final Argument). It is a universal experience, Newman rightly states, that we instinctively apprehend a difference between right and wrong; we also apprehend that we are under an obligation to do what is right, and we sense strongly that we will be subject to some sort of judgment on this score. Very few indeed are those who have never entertained such thoughts, or who manage to keep them at bay so continually as to forget them altogether.
At the same time, we cannot escape the observation that what is right is very frequently ignored, and that justice in this world is so imperfect as often to be laughable. Too often justice is a standard to which men are more likely to hold others than themselves, yet it remains a standard all the same, and people very typically look forward to a harmonious day when perfect justice will be achieved. Some, it is true, have sought this perfect justice through utopian schemes, and have ended by attempting (unjustly!) to effect it by force. But many, many more have thought it likely that the imbalances of this life would be redressed in another life. If we find ourselves with an outraged sense of justice then, and if nature really does abhor a vacuum, we must be made for a time and place when justice will be done.
Now a sense of right and wrong presumes some sort of law, which in turn presumes a lawgiver; and a judgment rather obviously demands a judge. This realization actually suggests two parallel lines of thought. First, it reinforces the idea that there must exist a God who somehow represents the Good and cares enough to punish those who violate it. Second, it leads us to a near-certainty that such a Judge would certainly wish to reveal Himself so that we should know clearly what He approves and what He abhors. In other words, the argument from conscience points directly at Revelation. It leads us naturally to inquire whether such a revelation has, in fact, been made.
The Christ
Though destined for universal acceptance, Christ entered the world at a particular time in history; His person, His preaching, and His works impress themselves upon the minds of men now at one time and now at another. It cannot be said that every human person, in his lifetime here on earth, will have heard about Jesus Christ. For many, indeed, He would be the end of a sincere search for revelation, if they could but know Him. But not all have known Him; not all, through ordinary human means at least, can know Him.
Nonetheless, a great many have now heard of Him, or have the opportunity of hearing of Him if they are in fact sincerely searching for God and His Revelation—as their consciences and personal reflections naturally lead them to do. For it is again a universal experience of the human mind (unless a man is in proud rebellion or has been carefully taught to the contrary) that one would expect to find a revelation from God precisely in that realm of activity which deals with God most directly, namely religion. And so one who has not already found this revelation ought to be spending some reasonable amount of time and energy in examing the different religions on offer throughout the world.
Now in thus canvassing the various religions, great and small, which vie for our allegiance, it becomes evident that very few claim to be based on a divine revelation, as opposed to the mere insights of their founders. And of those which claim a divine revelation, even fewer (exactly two, Judaism and Christianity) claim to be based on a revelation which was objectively validated by wonders that God alone could perform. Of these two, one claims to be the fulfillment of the other, and its founder is said to have risen from the dead—a claim as arresting as it is unique, and a claim also supported by a considerable historical testimony. My point is simply this: Someone who sincerely seeks answers, and who has heard the claims made on behalf of Jesus Christ, truly owes it to himself to take a closer look.
The Big Picture
The larger issue here is that too often atheists and agnostics dismiss believers by arguing that the claims of religion cannot be proven absolutely, such that on rational grounds doubt becomes impossible. That is true, but it puts the shoe on the wrong foot, as if the unbeliever has no call to look into the matter unless someone first convinces him of a particular religious position. To the contrary, any person who reflects on himself, on the world around him, on the moral order, and even on what he has heard of the claims of Christianity ought to be very serious about exploring and answering the God question. He certainly ought not to seek to ignore it, to isolate himself from its influence, or to heap scorn on those who do not give up so easily. Inquiring minds—which are the very best minds and the only responsible minds—really do want to know.
END OF POST
Yes, The Orate Fratres also recommends visiting the pole with fidelity to the Church…
Mary Magdalene: Will be attending...
Catholic women of the world unite. September 26 is the day to boycott Mass and pray for greater inclusion of women in the Catholic church.
In her misguided call to empty pews in the hope of ”making the powers that be think again”, Irish convert and instigator of the protest, Jennifer Sleeman recently noted that she herself, “Had always had questions about the fact that women could not be ordained.”
And again, this statement of purpose:
“Stay at home and pray for change. We are the majority. We may have been protesting individually but unremarked on, but together we have strength and our absence, the empty pews, will be noticed.
Whatever change you long for, recognition, ordination, the end of celibacy, which is another means of keeping women out, join with your sisters and let the hierarchy know by your absence that the days of an exclusively male-dominated church are over.”
And so too, some believe here.
Jennifer Sleeman: Questions the fact that women can't be ordained as Roman Catholic priests
The pro-women’s ordination group sponsoring the protest, One Spirit ~ One Call, along with the local chapter members of the dissident church reform organization Call To Action are asking for help in “talking up” the event in every parish throughout the archdiocese. And as if this breach of fidelity and communion weren’t serious enough, they have/are now recruiting help in contacting and promoting “Sunday Without Women” at Catholic high schools and colleges, as their website memo clearly reveals:
Last week One Spirit ~ One Call was shared at the Call to Action meeting. Other organizations and groups we are working on getting in touch with are the Catholic high schools and colleges in the area and, of course, all the parishes. If you have contacts or would like to take the lead in contacting and “talking up” this event to any of these groups, please get in touch with Julie Granger: [E-mail omitted]
Archdiocese Response
Despite an Infallible declaration that ensures the subject of ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood is settled matter and will never change, some don’t accept this portion of church teaching as final, or fail in their duty to support and enforce it. And thus, the true reality that false ordination of women is grave sin punishable through excommunication becomes further obscured within the hearts of the faithful. Especially, when events such as this one are allowed to be promoted within the archdiocese beforehand, and at times with the carefully worded support of parish priest’s. For example:
Rev. J. Mosbrucker
In the Gospels, we hear Jesus treat women with respect and equality. Paul continues this attitude toward women, especially in the phrase “there is no longer male or female…”. It is time for the Church to reclaim this Gospel message. One Spirit-One Call is an opportunity to begin the dialogue to reclaim this status for women in the Church. I support this event as a beginning in this process.
Rev. Robert W. Krueger
Women have the human right, also a right recognized in Catholic Church law, to express the pain of the inequality they experience in the church and their opinions for change to their bishops and other Christian faithful. One Spirit~One Call will be an opportunity for women to make this expression clearly and strongly. I gladly endorse the event.
Msgr. Charles Lienert, Pastor, St. Andrew Catholic Church
I support the event on September 26 that calls for increasing the awareness of injustice to women in the Catholic Church. Women are equal to men in the eyes of God through creation and baptism.
Despite some of his own pastor’s backing the demonstration on Sunday, it appears that Archbishop Vlazny is opposed. Local’s here will remember that His Eminence was previously bush-whacked 3-plus-years ago by members of this same chapter of Call To Action with their secretly organizing the non-ordination (and subsequent self-excommunication) of Toni Tortorilla–and that, on the very same day His Imminence was personally ordaining authentic priests. Yet, nonetheless, all this will remain baffling for the faithful, and understandably so, if it’s true as has been reported that supporting pastors of the current protest will not face any disciplinary measures.
I for one would not recommend criticizing His Imminence… I do recommend contacting the Archdiocese with your concerns. And especially this one:
The nature of Catholic dissent and action has changed. And faithful Catholics would do well to make this fact known to their pastors and shepherd’s. In this case, Archbishop Vlazny.
With the creation of the American Catholic Council (ACC) set for Detroit, Michigan in 2011, all the former “old-Guard” individual reform groups such as Call To Action have now organized under this one banner of the ACC, and are currently in the process of creating and promoting so-called listening dialogue sessions in our communities. All with the intention of eventually addressing the hierarchy with their dialogue (demands) for change; a moral as well as structural push for change of the Catholic Church in America. And this current protest blip in the process appears to be directed toward this same goal, by the same folks, within the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon.
From the One Spirit – One Call website:
What’s next?
The Spirit is guiding us as we plan and organize. We believe that One Spirit ~ One Call has the potential to become more than an event; it could the beginning of a new movement among God’s people and within the Church. We will contribute positively to reform and renewal in our Church. One Spirit ~ One Call will continue to use women’s wisdom and processes, inviting women to begin holding small gatherings to share their stories and name their hopes and dreams for the church. These small gatherings will begin in October and November; what comes out of the One Spirit ~ One Call Circles will guide us. When the time is right, we imagine we will enter into dialogue with the hierarchy. This all needs to be discerned and we will engage in a discernment gathering on the Feast of Christ the King, Nov. 21, at St. Charles Parish.
This all sounds too familiar to the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis with this Saturday’s past convening of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR). A new organization that the Archdiocese find necessary to warn the faithful about:
It has come to the attention of the Archdiocese that a group calling itself the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) is planning a 2010 ‘synod’ in the Archdiocese entitled, ‘Claiming Our Place at the Table’.
While the agenda for the proposed synod purports to be an exploration of the role of baptized Catholics within the institutional Church of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, it is not being conducted under the auspices of the Archdiocese, the universal Roman Catholic Church, or any entity or organization affiliated with the Archdiocese or the universal Roman Catholic Church.
The Archdiocese wishes it to be known that the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform, the 2010 synod, and individuals endorsing the same, are not agents or entities of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis or the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the Archdiocese wishes to lovingly caution those members of the faithful participating in the ‘work/study groups’ and intending to attend the synod of the potential that the issues on which CCCR will seek reform are magisterial teachings of the Church, and are therefore to be believed by divine and catholic faith. The Archdiocese also wishes to remind the faithful of its need to shun any contrary doctrines, and instead to embrace and retain, to safeguard reverently and expound faithfully, the doctrine of faith and morals proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church.
Let us hope for the same warning.
END OF POST
Is the Bible the sole authority?
Vic Biorseth, Tuesday, September 21, 2010
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Is the Bible the sole authority for teaching Christianity? And, if our Holy Scripture is the sole authority for Christian teaching, then, where does it say that in our Holy Scripture? In fact, how is it even possible, given that Christianity itself predates the Bible, which means that someone had to write the first Bible, without benefit of a Bible as a reference?
Of course, the Old Testament existed, and we know from nuances of language that the version quoted by our Lord and His Apostles and the Evangelists in the New Testament was the 73-book Septuagint, the first one-book Old Testament, written in Greek. But the New Testament did not exist yet. After the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the Assumption, over time, letters (epistles) were penned by Paul (or his scribes,) Peter, John, James and Jude, written to various newly established Churches. Many of these were held and preserved, and would eventually be included in the Church’s canon to be part of the New Testament. Years after the events, the Gospels and Acts were written by the Evangelists, and finally, Revelation was written by St. John.
But even in those days, neither Christians nor Jews depended entirely or solely upon even the existing Old Testament for their salvation and enlightenment. That’s why they had teachers and rabbis. The Word of the Lord was handed on long before it was ever written. There was a very, very long oral tradition in Judaism. The Law – the first five books of the Old Testament – began with Moses. The keepers and protectors and teachers of The Law were the sons of Aaron and the sons of Levi. Everybody didn’t have his own copy, and those who did, did not exercise their own interpretation.
Many Catholics, Orthodox and Jews have participated in “inter-denominational” Bible study groups, which always seem to be Protestant controlled. Although we may be allowed to participate and even to argue, none of us may ever “facilitate” or lead a meeting or Biblical discussion, because of a prerequisite promise we cannot make. The oath or affirmation is of the form,
I recognize that the Bible is inerrant, inspired by God and is the sole authority here.
No Catholic or Orthodox or Jew can say that. Only Protestants can say that, because Sola Scriptura is a strictly Protestant dogma, invented by Martin Luther. Even those Protestants who call themselves non-denominational are still Protestants if they adhere to this strictly Protestant dogma. So, virtually all “inter-denominational” Bible study groups that I have ever heard of have rules to exclude us from any sort of leadership role in Scripture study.
The Bible is indeed inerrant and inspired by God. But, if the Bible is the sole authority of all theology and morality, then, by what authority is that claim even made? By the authority of Martin Luther? Luther alone? If so, that is an extra-Scriptural authority, and it defeats the rule that the Bible is the sole authority.
I submit for your consideration the argument that it is quite impossible for the Bible to be the sole authority of any denomination, form or variation of Judao-Christian theology if the Bible itself nowhere makes that claim.
The Basis for Sole Authority. The Lutheran / Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura (sole authority of Scripture) always seems to primarily revolve around 2 Tim 3:16-17, as follows:
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
… which says nothing whatsoever about sole authority. I don’t even see why these verses are even brought up in any discussion on the authority of correct teaching of Christian theology or doctrine. They are quite correct, of course, in what they say, but they say nothing whatsoever about sole authority.
Authority, yes, but not sole authority. Christianity stands on three pillars, and 2 Tim 3:16-17 establishes one of those pillars as Scripture. Then we have 1 Tim 3:14-15 that firmly establishes the Church as another pillar:
[14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
… and then 2 Thess 2:15 establishes the third pillar, which is Tradition:
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Here we have the three pillars of Christian faith, all firmly established in Scripture, and they are:
Of course, our Lord selected his Apostles for a reason, and he gave them authority for a reason. We see in Matt 18:18 that he granted them to power to make and enforce rules of doctrine,
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
… and that he granted the same power uniquely to Peter, and to Peter alone he gave the Keys to the Kingdom, in Matt 16:
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
We discussed all this in more detail, including the meaning of the Keys, in the Infallibility Webpage, and I shouldn’t need to belabor those points again here.
Where does proper faith come from? Any good Protestant would answer that question with an immediate quote from 1 Rom 10:17, as follows:
[17] So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.
Note well that the verb used is heard and not read. The Sacred Word was preached – not written – by specially chosen men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. And all of it was not written. We know this from the end of John, as we see in John 21:25:
[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Where did all that teaching go? Into what Catholics call large-T Tradition. And it is recalled by His Church with the aid of the Holy Ghost, as promised by our Lord Himself in John 14:26:
[26] But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
He was speaking to His chosen Apostles, and to their successors: His Church.
All Catholics know, or should know, that blessed Peter gave us the First Rule of Scripture Study that we see in 2 Pet 1:19-21:
[19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. [20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, [21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
… which takes Scripture interpretation completely out of the hands of the laity. We laymen are free to read, think about, discuss and argue all those points not officially settled by the Church, but we are not free to come up with new or personal interpretations at variance with settled doctrine. The unchanging Gospel is preserved unchanged and protected forever by the authority of His Church with the Holy Ghost.
This follows the ancient pattern set by the Jews, renewed after the return from the Babylonian exile, as we see in Nehemiah. There, Ezra read aloud and interpreted for the people, the Book of the Law, after the long exile, in Neh 8:5-8:
5] And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people; and when he opened it all the people stood. [6] And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground. [7] Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.
… and continued by the Christians, as we see in Acts 8:26-40:
[26] But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. [27] And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. [29] And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. [32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: “As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. [33] In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth.” [34] And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?” [35] Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. [36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” [38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. [39] And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. [40] But Philip was found at Azo’tus, and passing on he preached the gospel to all the towns till he came to Caesare’a.
Like the rest of us, the Ethiopian needed someone to correctly interpret what he was reading, lest he be led astray by his own imaginings. We cannot have every-man-for-himself Scripture interpretation, for that would mean every-man-for-himself theology and every-man-for-himself morality. The Gospel message is not random; it is fixed forever.
So the answer is no, the Bible is not the sole authority, although it is one of the three pillars of Christian faith. At least, that’s my answer to the question, and I am just a layman and no theologian; I simply base my answer on Scripture itself, since that’s what Protestantism claims for pure authority. I back my argument up with Scripture, as it has been taught to me by my Church.
What’s your answer, and what do you back it up with?
Respond to this article at the link below :
Sole Authority
This article and comments may be found on the web site at the link below:
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
END OF POST
Now here’s a laugh… We’ve been anointed “Rogue of the Week” by editorial board members from the Willamette Weekly fishwrap.
[Emphasis/My Comments]
[ROGUE OF THE WEEK]
Defunding the homeless.
The Rogue Desk understands that charitable donors don’t have to fund their opponents [Stop. Actually, the homeless are not our opponents. 2000 plus-years of caring for the homeless alone dismisses this point... But, for the record, these numbers from a non-Catholic on Catholic social action in America:
---the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday, at cost to your Church of 10 billion dollars
---the Catholic Church has a non profit hospital system of 637 hospitals which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people
---the Catholic Church is a institution that clothes and feeds and houses the indigent--1 of 5 indigents in the United States, I’ve been to many of your shelters and no one asks them if you are a Catholic, a Protestant or a Jew; just “come, be fed, here’s a sweater for you and a place to sleep at night” at a cost to the Church of 2.3 billion dollars a year.
---The Catholic Church today has 64 million members in the United States and is the largest non-governmental agency in the country. It has 20,000 churches in this country alone. Every year they raise approximately $10 billion to help support these agencies.]
So really, the Church has helped prevent homelessness through education — binded the wounds of the homeless — has fed and given shelter to the indigent — is the largest non-governmental agency acting on behalf of the poor. Moving on…]
Nonetheless, we’re anointing [...with secular spittle...] the Archdiocese of Portland this week’s Rogue for refusing help to people in need based on a narrow-minded ideology. [Now, we get to the real point underlying this tripe...]
Last spring, Street Roots got word the archdiocese was cutting off up to $10,000 the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has provided annually to the local homeless paper for its outreach and advocacy. The reason was Rose City Resource, a publication by Street Roots listing hundreds of services for the homeless—including, for the third straight year, Planned Parenthood. The nonprofit provides contraception, STD testing and other health care for the poor. But it’s also anathema to the Church for offering abortions. [Yes, contraception and the greater intrinsically evil abortion contradicts the life sustaining/life giving ethos of the Catholic Church; and I might add, the norm of society. And no, we shouldn't have to support such anti-life acts with our tithing on behalf of the poor... We believe in defending the voiceless unborn who themselves are unable to find a home, or even shelter, from the ethos of death the Williamette Weekly so well represents.]
The CCHD money was up to 4 percent of Street Roots’ budget, and in these times any cut hurts. And certainly the rest of Rose City Resource fits in the “love thy neighbor” ideal. Now Street Roots must fill a gap to help homeless people.
[Note: In 2009, Reader's of the Williamette Weekly's sponsored Give! Guide helped raise $56,201 for the abortion provider Planned Parenthood Columbia Williamette, and all for the sake of feral cats and cat adoption services, contributed a total of $74, 358 on behalf of, well, animals... Street Roots received a whopping $7,183.]
END OF POST
Pope: “… Well, yes, the colors are acceptable, but can this thing trounce Wenski’s hog?”
++++++++++++++
Castel Gandolfo (Rome) 15 September, 2010 – The gift of two Ducati Multistrada motorcycles for the Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City has been presented to Pope Bendictus XVI to be used as part of the Pope’s official security motorcade.
During a ceremony at Castel Gandolfo, Ducati Motor Holding made the gift of two Ducati Multistradas to the Pope, the motorcycles specially prepared as special escort vehicles for the Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City during official security duties for the Pontiff.
The two 1200cc Ducati Multistrada motorcycles, finished in the special livery of the Pontifical State, were delivered directly to the Pope’s summer residence in Castel Gandolfo, Rome on 15 September. In the beautiful gardens adjoining the villa, a delegation of top management from the world-famous Italian motorcycle manufacturer officially presented the gift to His Holiness, Pope Bendictus XVI.
At the ceremony today, Carlo Bonomi, Andrea Bonomi (President of Investindustrial) and Gabriele Del Torchio (President of Ducati Motor Holding) had the honour of presenting the keys of the Ducati motorcycles personally to the Pontiff, and to greet him on behalf of the entire Ducati Company.
“We are very honoured for the unique opportunity of delivering our two special Ducati Multistradas to His Holiness today,” stated Gabriele Del Torchio, President at Ducati Motor Holding, after the ceremony. “For us, and for everyone who works at Ducati, this event represents something to be very proud of and a gesture that reinforces our daily commitment in our work at the factory. It is a symbolic gift with which we would like to express our sincerest appreciation and respect for the Pope and embrace his message of hope and trust in the future, which he addressed to all industries in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate.”
Thanks to Ducati’s gift, this will be the first time in history that the Vatican Gendarmerie Corp will use motorcycles in their delicate security tasks and the fact that this privilege has been given to an Italian manufacturer, gives merit and additional pride to all Italian industry. Furthermore, it strengthens the aura of excellence that already surrounds the dynamic and innovative motorcycle manufacturer, Ducati.
The new Multistrada 1200 has been finished in the special Pontifical livery of yellow and white and is extensively modified for the Gendarmerie Corp with a vertically telescopic flashing light mast, siren and radio communication. The Ducati Multistrada 1200 represents a completely new concept of motorcycle, designed to tackle any kind of journey and road surface by using technology derived directly from the Bologna-made race bikes that compete in MotoGP and World Superbike. The motorcycle has few limits and can transform itself to suit any rider’s demands at the press of a button. Described as being four-bikes-in-one, the Multistrada can transform itself from a sport bike to a touring bike suitable for long journeys with a passenger and luggage, or from an everyday commuter bike to an agile enduro bike, which can tackle off-road routes with ease. In designing the Multistrada, Ducati’s goal was to create a versatile motorcycle able to achieve impressive levels of performance at all times and in all places and their special blend of Italian innovation, elegance, style and technology perfectly characterises the motorcycles that come out of its Bologna factory.
SOURCE/END OF POST
We are all familiar with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and I suspect most of us accept it as a fact of life. I further suspect that most of us have never really considered the who, what, why, or wherefore of such conferences in the Church. This does not mean that the Church has not given serious consideration to the topic. The concept was not new to the Church in 1965, when the Vatican Council issued Christus Dominus, the Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church. It is there, in paragraph 38, where the concept is given definition:
An episcopal conference is a form of assembly in which the bishops of a certain country or region exercise their pastoral office jointly in order to enhance the Church’s beneficial influence on all men, especially by devising forms of the apostolate and apostolic methods suitably adapted to the circumstances of the times. (Christus Dominus, 38)
There is no doubt that such a unified exercise of a pastoral office is both practical and desirable. There are certain things in our country, for instance, that are made possible only because the bishops have joined together in cooperative effort. The work on the revised translations of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal could not be done independently by each bishop. This would be chaotic. The Haitian hurricane relief efforts of Catholic Relief Services is beyond the scope or capacity of any single bishop or diocese. Pouring through, evaluating, and making recommendations on the reform of health care in America requires resources simply not possessed by most dioceses — certainly not mine. It seems to me that a conference, in some form, is nearly essential.
There was a time in the fairly recent past when the conference, and especially its committees, had much more of a life of its own, seemingly independent of the body of bishops; but the revised structures have mitigated this significantly. There is a possibility that there may have been a concerted effort on the part of a segment of bishops in the past to foster a higher degree of autonomy on the part of the conference, but any comment by me would be entirely speculative. In general, I think the conference does a very good job of helping to identify issues, conduct research, and even influence national debates.
In doing this, however, it is sometimes easy for the conference to revert to stronger patterns of autonomy and even to be perceived as possessing types of authority that it neither claims nor possesses. It is easy to forget that the conference is the vehicle to assist bishops in cooperating with each other and not a separate regulatory commission. Undoubtedly, the conference has a place and an important role to play. In general, I find that the existence of the conference provides an avenue for me, as an individual bishop, to interact with my brother bishops, to share ideas, and to participate in national discussions in a way that would largely be impossible without the conference.
There is, however, room for concern about the tendency of the conference to take on a life of its own and to begin to replace or displace the proper role of individual bishops, even in their own dioceses. There may also be an unfortunate tendency on the part of bishops to abdicate to the conference a portion of their episcopal role and duty. For instance, there is a Doctrine Committee that is available for bishops to present questions and problems for a doctrinal opinion. The availability of such a committee is a great service, but if a bishop simply brings every question in his diocese to the Doctrine Committee and then reports to his faithful that the Doctrine Committee of the USCCB has decided X, Y or Z, he is failing to take hold of a responsibility that is uniquely his. It is much more appropriate for him to consult this Committee and then say: “After consultation with the Committee of Doctrine, I have decided X, Y or Z for my diocese.” A response such as this preserves the proper role of both the bishop and the conference. It is, however, much easier and safer to pass the responsibility to the Committee.
Despite the fact that the idea of a conference of bishops is included in the latter portion of the Document Christus Dominus, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the primary focus of that document. After all, its title is “The Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church,” not “The Role and Place of Episcopal Conferences in the Church.” In reality, Christus Dominus was rather revolutionary because of its strong insistence on the extent of the authority of the diocesan bishop. More than 30 years after Christus Dominus, Pope John Paul II in May of 1998 issued an Apostolic Letter, Apostolos Suos, on the Theological and Juridical Nature of Episcopal Conferences. I would surmise that this was done, in part, because of a concern about conferences exceeding the boundaries of their legitimate authority and infringing on the legitimate authority of bishops as taught in Christus Dominus. There, citing the 1985 Synod of Bishops, the Holy Father wrote:
The Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held in 1985, acknowledged the pastoral usefulness, indeed the need, in the present circumstances of Episcopal Conferences. It also observed that in their manner of proceeding, Episcopal Conferences must keep in mind the good of the Church, that is, the service of unity and the inalienable responsibility of each bishop in relation to the universal Church and to his particular Church. (Apostolos Suos, 7)
Cardinal Ratzinger (to be Pope Benedict XVI) in The Ratzinger Report, on the State of the Church, was a little more direct.
The decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops is in reality restrained or actually risks being smothered by the insertion of bishops into episcopal conferences that are ever more organized, often with burdensome bureaucratic structures. We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)
This is confirmed in the Code of Canon Law, which delimits the extent of the authority of the conference, noting that the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent (canon 455, ß4). Clearly, the conference cannot, on its own authority, substitute for the persons of the bishops, who are, according to Canon 753, “authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.” In his interview, Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed: “No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” As far as I know, the cardinal did not have a change of heart after his papal election.
John Paul II’s apostolic letter contains the same thought:
Certainly the individual bishops, as teachers of the faith, do not address the universal community of the faithful except through the action of the entire College of Bishops. In fact, only the faithful entrusted to the pastoral care of a particular bishop are required to accept his judgment given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. (Apostolos Suos, 11)
The recognition of the preeminent role of individual bishops is not a creation of the Second Vatican Council. In his second letter to Timothy, who was a bishop, St. Paul writes:
In the presence of God and of Jesus Christ, who is coming to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingly power, I charge you to preach the word, to stay with the task, whether convenient or inconvenient — correcting, reproving, appealing — constantly teaching and never losing patience. (2 Tim 4:1-2)
This admonition is given to individual bishops and, as the cardinal points out, it does not extend to the episcopal conferences.
Cardinal Ratzinger insists that clarity about the distinctive role of the bishop is critical:
Because it is a matter of safeguarding the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is based on an episcopal structure and not on a kind of federation of national churches. The national level is not an ecclesial dimension. It must once again become clear that in each diocese there is only one shepherd and teacher of the faith in communion with the other pastors and teachers and with the Vicar of Christ. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)
If you recall, some time ago, a local bishop offered his own interpretation of “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” telling the faithful entrusted to his care that the conference did not speak for him. This is entirely in line with what the Cardinal had written. Individual bishops are free to adopt such statements and reaffirm them in their own names for their dioceses, but no bishop has an obligation to do so; and such documents do not become normative for a particular diocese unless the bishop, either explicitly or implicitly, recommends them. Thus, if the faithful suggest to a bishop that he is acting contrary to a pastoral document issued by the conference, the bishop’s legitimate response is that he and the people of his diocese are not bound by conference statements unless he so determines.
Concerning such conference statements, Cardinal Ratzinger had something quite prophetic to offer:
It happens that with some bishops there is a certain lack of a sense of individual responsibility, and the delegation of his inalienable powers as shepherd and teacher to the structures of the local conference leads to letting what should remain very personal lapse into anonymity. The group of bishops united in the conferences depends in their decisions upon other groups, upon commissions that have been established to prepare draft proposals. It happens then that the search for agreement between the different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions (where they might be necessary) are weakened. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)
His eminence then cites a very poignant example from his own native land. He recalls an episcopal conference that had been held in his country in the thirties:
Well, the really powerful documents against National Socialism were those that came from individual courageous bishops. The documents of the conference, on the contrary, were often rather wan and too weak with respect to what the tragedy called for. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)
In the case mentioned above, the bishop was publicly criticized by his people for his failure to accept and adopt not only a document from the conference but, perhaps more significantly, their own particular interpretation of that document. This is not the same scenario envisioned by Cardinal Ratzinger, but it certainly stands as a corollary to it. There is an understandable confusion on the part of the faithful, who — whether with pure motives or not — read or interpret one thing in a conference document and hear something different from their own bishop.
The future Holy Father makes another point, which is certainly a real danger with documents produced by a committee. He points out that the search for consensus can result in a flattened document — or, as one bishop put it, documents that have found their least common denominator. Thus, when individual bishops — and there are more than a few — make personal statements about certain situations, those statements are often stronger, bolder, more decisive, and thus more likely to be criticized as harsh and insensitive. I fear that there has been such a steady diet of such flattened documents that anything issued by individual bishops that contains some element of strength is readily and roundly condemned or simply dismissed as being out of touch with the conference or in conflict with what other bishops might do.
In fairness to the conference, I have to say that I have never seen or heard the conference, either as a whole or as a committee, make any remarks critical of what individual bishops might have done or failed to do in their own dioceses. I think the conference fully understands the limits of its jurisdiction; I could not say the same about the faithful at large. It is quite possible that the faithful, and perhaps our national government, see in the conference a type of intermediate magisterium to which each bishop owes obedience and respect, and which is always empowered to speak for the bishops. This is not the case at all. In fact, quite the opposite has been strongly confirmed in Apostolos Suos. While recognizing the legitimate aims of episcopal conferences, Pope John Paul II wrote:
Such aims, however, require that an excessively bureaucratic development of offices and commissions operating between plenary sessions be avoided. The essential fact must be kept in mind that the Episcopal Conferences with their commissions and offices exist to be of help to the bishops and not to substitute for them. (Apostolos Suos, 18)
In the same document, we find other affirmations of the value of episcopal conferences, but there is often a corresponding word of caution:
Their importance is seen in the fact that they contribute effectively to unity between the bishops, and thus to the unity of the Church, since they are a most helpful means of strengthening ecclesial communion. Even so, the growing extent of their activities has raised some questions of a theological and pastoral nature, especially with regard to their relationship to the individual Diocesan bishops. (Apostolos Suos, 6)
The conference has been quite clear that it prepares pastoral documents and has no authority, on its own, to issue edicts or binding legislation. Since these pastoral documents lack legislative force, they are often couched in what could be described as softer or less rigoristic language. This is appropriate, because they are intended to be pastoral rather than legislative. One need only look at the difference between the documents of Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law. One is pastoral, while the other translates the intent of the pastoral document into concrete legislation. Legislation is up to the local bishop. The diocesan bishop has broad discretion in terms of legislative or disciplinary actions in his own diocese.
St. Paul advised Timothy of possible ways to deal with error, pointing out the need for “correcting, reproving, appealing — constantly teaching, and never losing patience.” The necessary tone of pastoral documents tends more toward appeal than toward reproof or correction. Paul’s instruction to Timothy is certainly pertinent:
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables. As for you, be steady and self-possessed; put up with hardship, perform your work as an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:3-5)
Pastoral documents, recognizing that people have lost a tolerance for sound teaching, tend to appeal without necessarily being too direct or critical. The obvious goal is to offer gentle invitations to conversion in a way that might attract those who prefer ear-tickling messages. Unfortunately, since they are pastoral in nature, such documents are open to a broad range of interpretation and misinterpretation. A charge could be brought that such documents are intentionally vague and misleading; and while I have had an occasional suspicion of this myself, it would be a serious defect of charity on my part to speculate about whether this is actually the case. I would say that the vagueness, whether intentional or not, has occasionally been a cause of concern and even consternation.
Sadly, since sound teaching is often rejected out of hand, the teachers who advocate a popular, ear tickling message are more likely to be admired and warmly received and accepted by our secular age. This contributes to an even further flattening of the message. St. Gregory the Great warns that a failure to be bold in speech can be caused by a fear of reproach. This is a very real danger in our present times. It may well be that a reliance on pastoral documents may stem from a two-fold fear: A fear of reproaching others and a fear of being reproached for having done so. It is sadly forgotten that such an approach may lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. There is prudent silence, but there is also imprudent silence. There is indiscreet speech, but there is also discreet and bold speech.
It is quite easy for bishops and priests to operate out of the mistaken notion that, if we preach the gospel in its fullness, we will be warmly greeted, accepted, admired, and acclaimed. This was not the case with Timothy or with Paul or with our Lord. Bishops should not anticipate that it will be so with us. I can assure you that events like this are very much the exception for bishops like me. The message of the gospel, with its call to conversion, is not necessarily easy. The secularity of the age in which we live makes it all the more challenging to preach properly the fullness of the gospel message and to put it into practice in our own lives.
Some teachings of the Church are certainly countercultural, and Paul predicted that they would not be tolerated and would be rejected. It is no news to you that we are very much influenced by cultural attitudes not necessarily informed by the gospel. To the more secular-minded, the teachings of the Church can seem to be behind the times, harsh, judgmental, or insensitive. As a result, some teachings of the Church have been allowed to fall by the wayside through what could be called, charitably, a kind of benign pastoral neglect. For many, in our politically correct world, this is identified with compassion. In truth, it often entails a complicity or a compromise with evil. The harder and less popular teachings are left largely unspoken, thereby implicitly giving tacit approval to erroneous or misleading theological opinions. Gregory, in his Pastoral Guide, writes about this pastoral approach:
A spiritual guide should be silent when discretion requires and speak when words are of service. Otherwise he may say what he should not or be silent when he should speak. Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favor of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who take refuge in silence when the wolf appears. The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are like dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves bold resistance to the powers of the world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right. When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel.
Individual bishops, in their own diocese, have the primary pastoral responsibility for discerning between indiscreet speech and imprudent silence. This does involve a particular judgment, and in this there is great diversity and even disparity from one bishop to another. There is practically no disparity among bishops about the sinfulness of abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual acts, embryonic stem cell research, or the plethora of offenses against purity; but there is great diversity about how to address these evils, or how to deal with those who boast of or even openly endorse them. In this, Archbishop Charles Chaput makes reference to a unity of doctrine but a diversity of strategy.
This diversity of strategy, this prudential decision to be silent or to speak, rests squarely on the shoulders of individual bishops. Thus, while many may think this to be the duty of the conference, it is really the role of the individual bishop. It is their inalienable duty; it cannot be delegated to the conference. In my view, Paul’s words to Timothy need to be a very serious part of the discernment: “I charge you to preach the word, to stay with the task, whether convenient or inconvenient — correcting, reproving, appealing — constantly teaching and never losing patience.”
Some bishops perhaps lean more strongly by temperament to reproving and correcting, while others favor the kinder, gentler approach of appealing. In my view, appealing has its place, but when constant appeal produces absolutely no movement toward self-correction, reform or conversion, then reproving and correcting, become necessary. At some point, there needs to be a bold resistance to the powers of the world in defense of the flock. The fear of offending one contemptuously dissident member of the flock often redounds to a failure to defend the flock. It can redound to a failure to teach the truth. In Saint Gregory’s words: “They hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favor of men but the men and women whose favor may be in jeopardy are often not nearly as favorable as they imagine.”
Unfortunately, the desire to rely almost exclusively on appeal may be indicative of a fear of reproach. This is not new. I mentioned above Saint Gregory’s acknowledgment of this reality. He chastised those who were afraid to reproach men for their faults, and thereby lulled the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Not only the evildoer but all the members of the flock who see the evildoers carry on with impunity begin to doubt and question their own moral assessments. I hear from many laity that their perception of a lack of courage on the part of episcopal leaders redounds to a discouragement of the faithful.
Fortunately, courage is contagious. Those of you congregated here have undoubtedly been encouraged, literally made more courageous, as a result of Archbishop Raymond Burke’s courage. You have undoubtedly admired Bishop Joseph Martino and Bishop Thomas Tobin for their courage in confronting dissident groups in their dioceses. You are allowed to stand a bit taller as you see Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix boldly confront medical moral evils. You know well, appreciate, and are emboldened by the courage of a Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, who unflinchingly speaks an often unpopular truth. These men all encourage you, and they encourage me as well. I am humbled to think that some of you might even be encouraged by me.
What is most notable about each of these courageous men is that they are acting not as members of a congress of bishops, but as individual bishops in their own dioceses. They have each shown a very serious determination to avoid indiscreet speech, while overcoming what would otherwise be an imprudent silence. In the evaluation of a secular media, any strong speech against moral evil is most often labeled as indiscreet; while imprudent silence, even in the face of very serious moral evils, is praised as the epitome of Christ-like compassion. Appealing is praised, while correcting or reproving is deemed to be too harsh.
You need to be aware, also, that episcopal courage is often linked to suffering. For those who have come to be viewed unfavorably in illuminati circles, there is the spreading of defamatory half lies, print and blog ridicule, rumor, gossip, and character assassination. Often real assassination may seem preferable. Then there is the harm to the solid faithful of the diocese who see and hear these things and begin to wonder whether they are being duped for their trust in their bishop. Finally, there is the ever-present threat and reality of economic boycott, which likewise takes a heavy toll, especially in a poor and sparsely populated diocese such as mine. When a bishop recognizes that his preference is to speak boldly but that doing so could redound to the economic crippling of his diocese, then he realizes that reactions to him not only touch him but have potential negative ramifications for the people and parishes under his pastoral leadership. Thus, when faced with the possibility of issuing a very kind pastoral letter or something a little more direct, a bishop may choose kindness — not out of conviction and not out of fear but out of perceived necessity. I sometimes wonder what bishops would say if this consideration was no longer a factor in their dioceses.
While my assignment was to discuss the concept of conferences of bishops, I have found that, in reality, it is only possible to talk about the ministry and mission of each bishop. While this ministry is exercised in communion with his brother bishops, it is not necessarily capable of being exercised in conformity with them. The things that St. Paul wrote to Timothy apply in a unique way to individual bishops, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to apply them to a conference of bishops as a whole. Every baptized person is given that three-fold dignity of priest, prophet, and king corresponding to three Christ-like roles: offering sacrifice, teaching, and leading. This dignity adheres to a person and, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, it adheres in a preeminent and inalienable way to individual bishops. Individual bishops, if they rely too strongly on simply following the lead of the conference, do so at great spiritual peril.
St. Thomas More had it exactly correct when approached by the Duke of Norfolk to join him in signing the Oath of Succession. The duke points to all who have already signed and says: “Can’t you do what I did, and come with us, for fellowship?” Thomas More replies, “And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?” Bishops may not simply go along with the conference for the sake of fellowship.
In closing, I again turn to Apostolos Suos, which is wonderfully clear about the duties and responsibilities of the individual bishop:
Bishops, whether individually or united in conference, cannot autonomously limit their own sacred power in favor of the Episcopal Conference, and even less can they do so in favor of one of its parts, whether the permanent council or a commission or the president. (Apostolos Suos, 20)
* * *
This article was based on remarks Bishop Vasa delivered at the 2010 InsideCatholic Partnership Award Dinner on Thursday, September 16. The title of his address was “Sacred Duties, Episcopal Ministry.”
