AmericanPapist Comments
This is so wrong if it is correct. Bishops like the Archbishop of LA get away some of the worse heterodoxy, but a Bishop like Bishop Bruskewitz can get hammered? This would truely be a trip to bizarro world.
Where does the Charter require an ordinary to participate in the Review Board audit process? It doesn't.
The Review Board itself is legitimate but Brukewitz is saying that the people appointed to it are not well-educated in the faith and do not think with the mind of the Church. As such the Review Board has little to offer his diocese.
It's refreshing to see a bishop who doesn't pull any punches.
Charles - if the NRB is "particular law" for the USCCB, then it applies to every diocese in the USCCB.
Laws issued for a certain area apply to everyone in that area. There isn't an op-out clause that lets you not pay your taxes...
If, as Ed Peters says, "Bishop Bruskewitz should 'in obedience' abide by the norms of the National Review Board in accord with the legal provisions of the Catholic Church," does this apply also to Cardinal George. Should he too, not have "fraternal correction" by his brother bishops for not following the Norms in the recent brouha in Chicago? And what about Bishop Skylstad who has not step aside after recent allegations?
This raises an interesting question. Such as, is it right to disobey something that is clearly wrong? Was it right for Cardinal Mahoney to threaten to disobey federal law? Where can someone draw the line??
The good ones get screwed, the bad ones thumb their noses. Meanwhile they have some bullshit 'talking about touching' that's imported into the Church from bad sources.
Not to mention that umm
it's mostly teenage boys that need to be prepared and warned about homosexual clergy.
On the bright side, abuse numbers are way, way down, back to WW II level pretty much.
I am preparing a report on sex abuse. It's eye-opening to see just the facts.
AP- you should check out Pete Vere's critique at Catholic Light. It looks to me like a pretty strong defence of Bruskewitz. All in all, it looks like Peters may be wrong on this one.
Pete Vere is off topic on this one, imo. but I don't feel like getting any more involved in the debate - we'll see what happens.
Bruskewitz is definitely morally right IMO, that agency may be bureaucratically right.
Are we reading the same post? How is Vere off-topic?
The points Vere makes about Article 9 (for instance), ignore the salient information in Article 9 about a report having to be made to the Holy See concerning how all the dioceses/eparchies in the US are implimenting the norms - how can the report be made if not all the Bishops are taking part in the audit process, let alone abiding by the norms? Vere doesn't choose to address that and instead starts talking about "advisory" status.
now, don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the NRB is a good thing (it looks like it isn't), but just because the norms aren't good doesn't mean you can just ignore them, and it certainly doesn't mean you can claim they dont exist or don't apply.
first admit they do exist and apply, and then give your reasons for not choosing to obey them. that's what should have been done.
I think the case is made that the norms DO apply to all bishops in the US. They are NOT just advisory.
Commenting by HaloScan
