Disagreeing With The Usccb?

[RC Patriot]

Recently, I was reading an article in the news that claimed that the bishops of my state had endorsed specific legislation on gun control, and while doing some research into the source (as is often necessesary when the media makes claims about Catholic leadership), I found this:

http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/bjc_2013/I-594%20statement%20final%20eng%201112513.htm

 

So it was true, and looking into it further, I found a similar statement from the USCCB.

 

I'm not here to debate against gun control, though I could.

 

What I am here for is to ask what real Catholics think about the more general scenario.

What I'm having trouble with is,

1) I agree that we should all find ways to reduce violence of every kind and zealously foster a Culture of Life.

2) I disagree that eroding our means of self-defense will do that, especially with such a poorly written law.

3) I could be wrong... and I hate being wrong... but I also respect my bishops... but I think they're wrong.

4) Should the bishops be involving themselves in specific policy where the morality of that policy is so unclear? Or is it my own moral compass that's unclear?

 

I am sincerly trying to see this from their side, trying to be humble about it, but without a theological or moral explanation of what they're trying to accomplish, I'm tempted to just say, "stay out of it."

 

I'm coming here because I know I'll find a genuine Catholic perspective to help me think through it.

[Ice_nine]

there's some folk here who are pretty vocal against gun control laws (and we have a few hippie dippy's who are all "save the children" and ish) so I'm crossing my fingers for a huge flamewar.

[PhuturePriest]

there's some folk here who are pretty vocal against gun control laws (and we have a few hippie dippy's who are all "save the children" and ish) so I'm crossing my fingers for a huge flamewar.

 

I flip-flop my position on it. It really depends on if I'm reading Winchester's post or Hasan's. When I'm not reading posts on Phatmass about it, I tend to be in the middle: I can see how the State outlawing guns could lead to something bad, but then again, I don't feel as if guns are an inherent right, and if the State did make them illegal, I wouldn't protest in the street or anything.

[Luigi]

Bishops have the authority and the duty to teach their flocks. They develop considered opinions on current issues and legislation to address those issues - homelessness, education, (un)employment and workers' rights, and gun control.

 

As a Catholic and as a citizen, I have to assume that their considered opinions are informed by their knowledge or morality, Catholic doctrine, and the greater good.

 

However, their teaching doesn't carry the weight of the magesterial teaching of the Church. And they are not, by definition, politicians. It is certainly possible that they could be wrong about the way the law is written, or the way a law will be enforced - that kind of thing. Sometimes they settle for "a step in the right direction" over what they actually want - that's the nature of the political beast.

 

In developing my own stance on any given issue, I read the teaching of the bishops and take it into consideration, but I don't vote in lock step with everything they say.

[NotreDame]

ICE_NINE is right.  This could get ugly. 

 

I'll just remind you that these are probably the same bishops that were all for the affordable care act (AKA ObamaCare) and are now stuck suing the government for their religious freedom as a result. 

 

Lenin was quoted as saying "Capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them."  Today it appears US Catholic Bishops will lend the government the moral authority with which it will persecute their own parishioners...

 

Which reminds me what the Fathers of the Church had to say on this subject:

 

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
St. John Chrysostom attributed

“I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.”
St. John Chrysostom, Extract from St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12.2

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325 attributed

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
Saint John Eudes, attributed
 

[Not The Philosopher]

I dig the OP's avatar.

[havok579257]

Recently, I was reading an article in the news that claimed that the bishops of my state had endorsed specific legislation on gun control, and while doing some research into the source (as is often necessesary when the media makes claims about Catholic leadership), I found this:

http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/bjc_2013/I-594%20statement%20final%20eng%201112513.htm

 

So it was true, and looking into it further, I found a similar statement from the USCCB.

 

I'm not here to debate against gun control, though I could.

 

What I am here for is to ask what real Catholics think about the more general scenario.

What I'm having trouble with is,

1) I agree that we should all find ways to reduce violence of every kind and zealously foster a Culture of Life.

2) I disagree that eroding our means of self-defense will do that, especially with such a poorly written law.

3) I could be wrong... and I hate being wrong... but I also respect my bishops... but I think they're wrong.

4) Should the bishops be involving themselves in specific policy where the morality of that policy is so unclear? Or is it my own moral compass that's unclear?

 

I am sincerly trying to see this from their side, trying to be humble about it, but without a theological or moral explanation of what they're trying to accomplish, I'm tempted to just say, "stay out of it."

 

I'm coming here because I know I'll find a genuine Catholic perspective to help me think through it.

 

 

saying the bishops only get involved in some specific policies is exactly what the liberals want.  Telling the bishops they should not get involved in some issues does more harm then good.  Also the church which the bishops are an extension of should get involved in all policies just as every citizen should.

 

If you say just stay out of it when it comes to gun control then you can't really be upset when someone says to stay out of the abortion debate because its the same thing.  

[havok579257]

ICE_NINE is right.  This could get ugly. 

 

I'll just remind you that these are probably the same bishops that were all for the affordable care act (AKA ObamaCare) and are now stuck suing the government for their religious freedom as a result. 

 

Lenin was quoted as saying "Capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them."  Today it appears US Catholic Bishops will lend the government the moral authority with which it will persecute their own parishioners...

 

Which reminds me what the Fathers of the Church had to say on this subject:

 

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”
St. John Chrysostom attributed

“I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish.”
St. John Chrysostom, Extract from St. John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12.2

“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
St. Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, AD 325 attributed

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
Saint John Eudes, attributed
 

 

 

to be fair catholic bishops have been for universal healthcare for over a hundread years.  obamacare may not be the right idea but support of universal healthcare has been something bishops have supported for a long time.

[Lil Red]

Bishops have the authority and the duty to teach their flocks. They develop considered opinions on current issues and legislation to address those issues - homelessness, education, (un)employment and workers' rights, and gun control.

 

As a Catholic and as a citizen, I have to assume that their considered opinions are informed by their knowledge or morality, Catholic doctrine, and the greater good.

 

However, their teaching doesn't carry the weight of the magesterial teaching of the Church. And they are not, by definition, politicians. It is certainly possible that they could be wrong about the way the law is written, or the way a law will be enforced - that kind of thing. Sometimes they settle for "a step in the right direction" over what they actually want - that's the nature of the political beast.

 

In developing my own stance on any given issue, I read the teaching of the bishops and take it into consideration, but I don't vote in lock step with everything they say.

 

I would just say/correct that an individual bishop has the authority & duty to teach their flocks. the bishops' "collective" arm in the form of the USCCB carries no magisterial weight of the Church.  apologies if this is what you meant and my reading comprehension is just off. otherwise, great post.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Lil Red

[RC Patriot]

saying the bishops only get involved in some specific policies is exactly what the liberals want.  Telling the bishops they should not get involved in some issues does more harm then good.  Also the church which the bishops are an extension of should get involved in all policies just as every citizen should.

 

If you say just stay out of it when it comes to gun control then you can't really be upset when someone says to stay out of the abortion debate because its the same thing.  

 

And that's exactly what I was thinking! Thus, the dilemma... Because I strongly believe that the Church ought to take a stronger stand on issues that affect the Church and Her members. Which really makes me feel like a hypocrite.

 

What really bothers me about this particular case is that If were to do an internet search for  "Catholic stance on (X)" whether it be birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, or whatever, I'll find plenty of information that will support the Church's position. Not so with gun control. I've always judged people on the other side of those issues as "poorly catechized." But now it seems I'm the uncatechized one.

 

Where is the "Humanae Vitae" of firearms?

 

But my frustration extends beyond that. Why aren't Catholics everywhere catechized better? How is it possible to have so many Catholics, even those educated by Catholic schools, who don't believe even the most basic extensions of Catholic morality? It's somewhat of a different topic, I know, but how are we going to last as a Church if we don't hear the reasons for our faith? All I want is reasons for their support of that initiative, not the airy language of politics, as if by disagreeing with them I'm not for lowering violence and school shootings, or as if I support gun ownership by violent criminals. They do have degrees in philosophy, don't they? Give me accurate philosophical reasons, please!! I am a very strong supporter of gun rights, but my mind is open.

 

 

P.S. - Thank you, 'Not The Philosopher,' you too ;)

[Nihil Obstat]

The Winnipeg Statement is all the proof that is necessary that the formal decisions of bishops' conferences are certainly not protected from errors of any sort. That Statement remains a painful stain against the credibility of the Canadian bishops, who have yet to officially retract it.

 

 

I read an interesting critique of the general state of national bishops' conferences. Read it if you like. My posting it implies neither that I agree nor disagree with the content.

 

From: An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I will not link to the source document, but it is not difficult to find if you would like to read it yourself.

This is about half of chapter 13, 

Religous Liberty, Collegial Equality, Ecumenical Fraternity

 

 

 

This democratization of the Magisterium represents a mortal danger for millions of bewildered and infected souls to whom the spiritual doctors bring no relief because it has ruined the efficacy with which the personal Magisterium of the Pope and bishops was formerly endowed.  A question concerning faith or morals is submitted to numerous theological commissions, who never come up with an answer because their members are divided both in their opinions and in their methods.  We need only read the procedural accounts of the assemblies at all levels to realize that collegiality of the Magisterium is equivalent to paralysis of the magisterium.

Our Lord instructed individuals, not a collectivity, to tend His sheep. The Apostles obeyed Our Lord's orders, and until the twentieth century it was thus.  These days we hear of the Church being in a state of permanent council, continual collegiality. The results have become apparent. Everything is upside down, the faithfull no longer know which way to turn.

The democratization of government was followed quite naturally by the democratization of the Magisterium which took place under the impulse of the famous slogan “collegiality,” spread abroad by the communist, Protestant and progressive press.

They have collegialized the pope's government and that of the bishops with a presbyterial college, that of the parish priest with a lay council, the whole broken down into innumerable commissions, councils, sessions, etc. The new Code of Canon Law is completely permeated with this concept. The pope is described as the head of the College of Bishops. We find this doctrine already suggested in the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to which the College of Bishops, together with the pope, exercises supreme power in the Church in habitual and constant manner.  This is not a change for the better; this doctrine of double supremacy is contrary to the teaching and Magisterium of the Church. It is contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I and to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Satis Cognitum. The Pope alone has supreme power; he communicates it only to the degree he considers advisable, and only in exceptional circumstances. The pope alone has power of jurisdiction over the whole world.

We are witnessing therefore a restriction on the freedom of the Supreme Pontiff.  Yes, this is a real revolution! The facts demonstrate that what we have here is not a change without practical consequences. John Paul II is the first pope to be really affected by the reform. We can quote several precise instances where he has reconsidered a decision under pressure from a bishops’ conference. The Dutch Catechism received the imprimatur from the Archbishop of Milan without the modifications requested by the Commission of Cardinals. It was the same with the Canadian Catechism. In that connection I heard someone in authority in Rome say, “What can we do when faced with a bishops’ conference?” The independence assumed by the conferences has also been illustrated in France with regard to the catechisms. The new books are contrary in almost every respect to the Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae. The ad limina visit by the bishops of the Paris area in 1982 consisted in their getting the Pope to ratify a catechism which he openly disapproved.  The allocution delivered by John Paul II at the end of the visit had all the signs of a compromise, thanks to which the bishops were able to return in triumph to their own country and continue with their pernicious practices. Cardinal Ratzinger's lectures in Paris and Lyons indicate clearly that Rome has not endorsed the reasons given by the French bishops for installing a new doctrine and orientation, but the Holy See has been reduced by this kind of pressure to proceeding by suggestions and advice, instead of issuing the orders needed to put things on the right track, and when necessary to condemn, as the popes have hitherto always done, as guardians of the deposit of faith.

The bishops, whose authority would thereby seem to be increased, are the victims of a collegiality which paralyzes the running of their dioceses. So many complaints are made on this subject by the bishops themselves, complaints which are very instructive! In theory the bishop can in a number of cases act against the wishes of the assembly. Sometimes even against the majority, if the voting has not been submitted to the Holy See for approval; but in practice this has proved impossible. Immediately after the end of the meeting its decisions are published by the secretary.  They are thus known to all priests and faithful; the news media divulge all the essentials. What bishop could in fact oppose these decisions without showing his disagreement with the assembly and then immediately finding himself confronted with a number of revolutionary spirits who would appeal against him to the assembly?

The bishop has become the prisoner of collegiality, which should have been limited to a consultative group, not a decision-making body. Even for the simplest things he is no longer master of his own house.

Soon after the Council, while I was on a visitation of our communities, the bishop of a diocese in Brazil came very obligingly to meet me at the railway station. “I can't put you up at the bishop's house,” he said,  “but I have had a room prepared for you at the minor seminary.” He took me there himself; the place was in an uproar--young men and girls everywhere, in the corridors and on the stairs. “These young men, are they seminarians?” I asked.  “Alas, no.  Believe me, I am not at all happy at having these young people at my seminary, but the Bishops' Conference has decided that we must from now on hold Catholic Action meetings in our houses.  These you see are here for a week.  What can I do? I can only do the same as the others.”

The powers conferred upon persons by divine right, whether pope or bishops, have been confiscated for the benefit of a group whose ascendency continues to grow. Bishops’ conferences, some will say, are not a recent thing.  Pius X gave them his approval at the beginning of this century. That is correct, but that holy pope gave them a definition which justified them.  “We are persuaded that these bishops’ assemblies are of the greatest importance for the maintenance and development of God’s kingdom in all regions and all provinces.  Whenever the bishops, the guardians of holy things, thereby bring their lights together, the result is that not only do they better perceive their people's needs and choose the most suitable remedies, but they thereby also tighten the bonds uniting them.”

Consequently, they were bodies that did not make decisions binding on their members in an authoritarian manner,  any more than do congresses of scientists decide the way in which experiments must be carried out in this or that laboratory.

The bishops’ conference, however, now works like a parliament; the permanent council of the French episcopate is its executive body. The bishop is more like a prefect or a commissioner of the Republic (to use the fashionable terminology) than a successor of the Apostles charged by the pope to govern a diocese.

In these assemblies they vote; the ballots are so numerous that at Lourdes they have had to install an electronic voting system.  This results inevitably in the creation of parties. The two things do not happen one without the other. Parties mean divisions. When the regular government is subjected to the consultative vote in its normal functioning, then it is rendered ineffective. Consequently the whole body suffers.

The introduction of collegiality has led to a considerable weakening in efficacy, in that the Holy Ghost is more easily impeded and saddened by an assembly than by an individual. When persons are responsible, they act, they speak, even if some say nothing.  At meetings, it is the majority who decide. Yet numbers do not make for the truth. Nor do they make for efficiency, as we have learnt after twenty years of collegiality and as we might have presupposed without making the experiment.  The fable-writer spoke long ago of the “many chapters which have been held for nothing.”  Was it necessary to copy the political systems in which decisions are justified by voting (since they no longer have sovereign heads)? The Church possesses the immense advantage of knowing what she must do to further the Kingdom of God. Her leaders are appointed. So much time is wasted in elaborate joint statements, which are never satisfactory, because they have to take everyone’s opinion into account! So much travelling to take part in commissions and sub-commissions, in select committees and preparatory meetings! Bishop Etchegaray said at Lourdes at the close of the 1978 Assembly, “We no longer know which way to turn.”

The result is that the Church’s powers of resistance to Communism, heresy, immorality, have been considerably  weakened.  This is what its opponents have been hoping for and that is why they made such efforts, at the time of the  Council and after it, to urge her into the ways of democracy.

If we look carefully, it is by means of its slogan that the Revolution has penetrated the Church. “Liberty”--this is the religious liberty we spoke of earlier, which confers rights on error. “Equality”--collegiality and the destruction of personal authority, the authority of God, of the pope, of the bishops; in a word, majority rule. Finally, “Fraternity” is represented by ecumenism.

By these three words, the revolutionary ideology of 1789 has become the Law and the Prophets. The Modernists have achieved what they wanted.

 

Edited March 10, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[havok579257]

And that's exactly what I was thinking! Thus, the dilemma... Because I strongly believe that the Church ought to take a stronger stand on issues that affect the Church and Her members. Which really makes me feel like a hypocrite.

 

What really bothers me about this particular case is that If were to do an internet search for  "Catholic stance on (X)" whether it be birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, or whatever, I'll find plenty of information that will support the Church's position. Not so with gun control. I've always judged people on the other side of those issues as "poorly catechized." But now it seems I'm the uncatechized one.

 

Where is the "Humanae Vitae" of firearms?

 

But my frustration extends beyond that. Why aren't Catholics everywhere catechized better? How is it possible to have so many Catholics, even those educated by Catholic schools, who don't believe even the most basic extensions of Catholic morality? It's somewhat of a different topic, I know, but how are we going to last as a Church if we don't hear the reasons for our faith? All I want is reasons for their support of that initiative, not the airy language of politics, as if by disagreeing with them I'm not for lowering violence and school shootings, or as if I support gun ownership by violent criminals. They do have degrees in philosophy, don't they? Give me accurate philosophical reasons, please!! I am a very strong supporter of gun rights, but my mind is open.

 

 

P.S. - Thank you, 'Not The Philosopher,' you too ;)

 

 

Think about this though, how many catholics are catechized properly and how many just want to do their own thing.  I think the vast majority of people who are catholic who support gay marriage, birth control, abortion and women priest can't claim to not know what the church teaches on these issues.  The news media blasts the church on these issues all the time.   People who support this stuff for the vast majority choose to go against church teaching.

[4588686]

Anime is dumb

[Winchester]

The State rapes people when dogs tell them the person might have drugs on them. Forgive me for thinking that having professional rapists determine who may possess firearms is an incredibly stupid idea.

[RC Patriot]

Think about this though, how many catholics are catechized properly and how many just want to do their own thing. I think the vast majority of people who are catholic who support gay marriage, birth control, abortion and women priest can't claim to not know what the church teaches on these issues. The news media blasts the church on these issues all the time. People who support this stuff for the vast majority choose to go against church teaching.

This is true, knowledge of the church's position on issues is easily accessible. I've been an apologist, catechist, and in youth ministry for 10 years now, and I can tell you, authority ain't what it used to be. The "what" of catechesis has been replaced by "why," and that's where the gap is. When kids learn that Catholics are against same sex marriage, they accept it before they even know what it is. But when they get older, and their friends, teachers, and the ubiquitous television tells them that gay marriage is okay, with all the slogans to go along with it, what do they have to fall back on? Church authority, which is bombarded with charges of "intolerance"? How can we judge them for running away from the fight if we never equipped them for battle?

We should engage with the culture that exists today. And to do that, it would be nice to know if the bishops had our back. If I'm on the wrong side of an issue, I want to know why, thoroughly and unequivocally.

@Nihil Obstat, thanks for the post. That's a very interesting perspective. In Washington, where liberalism has crept into so many Catholic institutions, I would not be surprised if political pressure influenced their decision.