AmericanPapist Comments
Bishop Martino is great. I've met him and spoken with him at length. Great scholar, deliberate, wise man.
In the pro-life trenches, whenever a prominent church-man stands up to the real 'powers that be', it's like a clarion call from a silver trumpet. It takes courage to be pro-life and also wit, wisdom, and grit. Its required pre-Civil Rights Act moral courage for the last 30 years and one day all snarky pundits will look back on these days and huff and puff about how brave they would have been had they had the chance to stand up to the monster of the abortion-industrial complex.
Martino is doing it. Hurrah!
It would be nice if an established canon lawyer were to opine or clarify on the relationship between the authority of the bishop and his respective conference.
Instead of a canon lawyer, how about the Legislator?
In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops . . . may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two-thirds of the Bishops belonging to the conference and having a deliberate vote.
John Paul II, m.p. Apostolos suos art. 1, 90 A.A.S. 646 (1998) (emphasis added).
To suppress discussion and dictate what is and is not appropriate to read is stifling and just plain wrong.
Those panelists, those taking part in discussion - how did they feel? Are they children who need to be told what to eat, what to do? Such acts as the bishop's cannot engender a feeling of participation in the Church but rather just serve as self-aggrandizing gestures.
We talk about authority, as in 'who has authority?' What about the authority of each individual's conscience, and their ability to take part in civil and rational discourse?
"Who do men say that I am?" Take a vote. Let's be democratic. Let's see what they say."
"Some say Elijah." That's not right. "Some say Jeremiah." That's not right. "One of the prophets." That's not right.
So the Master rejected a democratic church.
"To...dictate what is and is not appropriate to read is stifling and just plain wrong."
A bishop has the duty to tell Catholics what is Catholic. That is not stifling. That is helpful.
Some people get uncomfortable when bishops actually bish.
I like that verb form. To bish.
There is nothing wrong with saying "here is what the Catechism says," or "here are my thoughts on the issue and I can refute other views based on logic and reasoning and not solely on the basis of authority."
But when you burst into a civil discourse and start demanding that people stop engaging with a text or an idea - well, that IS wrong. These people are not children, they are adults who can engage with ideas on rational terms.
When people engage fully and form a dialogue with their faith and the ideas within Catholicism, then they will be more likely to live it in a meaningful way. If you just want a bunch of people who have memorized some laws and follow them like robots, well then you don't have much of a religion.
Sidorius Apollinaris:
Straw man. You are being dishonest here.
Ath...only one of those is a complete sentence.
When people engage ideas which are not accurate, or which shouldn't be given the credence of being engaged (voting for Obama) a Bishop has a duty to teach them. How they respond is their responsibility.
Sid:
At least they are complete thoughts. Your argument is based on a lie.
I can see that Ath is very interested in reasoning and healthy discussion.
So I will respond to David:
It may be said that all knowledge makes a bloody entrance, but bursting into meetings and denying a right to open discussion is the stuff of inquisitions (and yes, I mean that word in the pejorative sense).
A bishop may have the duty to teach, but it is not well accomplished by force. Rather, it would be more appropriate, and I think more efficacious, if the bishop fairly engaged with his constituents' legitimate dilemmas. On the basis of reason, not authority, refute arguments about x, y, and z. The true authority of the Church comes from her rich intellectual and spiritual tradition - a tradition that must harmonize with the souls of the faithful in order to continue in any meaningful way.
Furthermore, I am not only talking about discussions about how to approach voting; but rather any situation in which discussion, reading, or other engagement with ideas is suppressed. The kind of behavior exhibited by the bishop does not betray any desire to achieve greater understanding or even a more faith-based view of democratic participation. It only says that the bishop wants to be in control and he will exercise force when he wants to make sure that his flock is towing his line.
"bursting into meetings and denying a right to open discussion is the stuff of inquisitions"
Was the forum not open to all? Was it wrong for the bishop to admonish the forum for their out-of-context use of the already murky USCCB statements? Bishop Martino did not 'force' anyone to do anything. He did his job: teach, and when necessary, admonish your flock. He told those present the truth: He alone, as their bishop, was the authority concerning issues within the diocese.
This is not about stifling ideas. This is not about "forcing" others to "tow the line.": This is about a bishop reminding Catholics that they cannot pick and choose the teachings of their Faith. This is about a shepherd guiding his flock to the truth: Catholics must properly form and vote their consciences.
If Catholics in Martino's Diocese still wish to support a pro-abortion candidate, they at least now know that they shouldn't.
David B:
Sid is dishonest. His statement about using "force" is as ridiculous as his stance.
He probably supports abortion, and is indignant that a bishop actually has the gall to tell him he is wrong.
Secondly, he has no understanding of the hierarchy of the Church. It is not based on democratic principles, where people vote on morality.
His argument, as poor as it is, demonstrates his faulty understanding of the role of the bishop, and the structure of the Church.
BTW, Sid, I bet you disapproved of the way Jesus barged in on those poor, helpless moneychangers in the Temple too. Very undemocratic of Him to fail to weigh in on their opinions.
The force of the Church's teaching comes from God.
A bishop has teaching authority in his diocese.
The, "let's talk about issues and dialogue about babies being murdered instead of standing up for truth" approach got us 50 million dead babies.
Sid, less sophistry and more substance.
Thomas, what about this is causing you so much thought?
David, I think that the essential conflict in this discussion is that between authority (you) and collegiality (me).
Now, if you will, remove the issue of abortion from the equation. We all agree that it is universally wrong but I want to examine the problem in abstract form.
If a group of lay people (much as we) were discussing x issue with a moral dimension, why should they not have any range of texts which they discuss. So perhaps they have Scripture, the Catechism, a letter from a bishop, the moral essays of Seneca, Kant, and Robert Frost (these are mostly just names of authors off the top of my head). Maybe, for expediency sake this group has already eliminated other texts from their corpus: Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, and Thoukydides' histories. Again, just pulling some names to make the example colorful.
Now even if there are some texts and ideas that should be given precedent, why should any individual or group be prevented from ingesting any particular idea - so long as the group is composed of reasonably intelligent persons?
Do these other texts not have something meaningful to say about human nature, moral philosophy, and service to God?
Furthermore, where does the authority of the bishop come from? Okay - I know that you will probably respond with some variant of "God." But historically we can certainly point to variation in the power and quality of bishoprics. And often the position itself is as much an expression of temporal concerns as theological. What about the deaconate in the Pauline church? It certainly included women, yet this tradition has been eradicated. What I am getting at is that a bishop's authority can be understood in social and historical contexts and not necessarily as an absolute phenomenon.
Even so, what I argued for in previous posts is efficacious use of power, not that that power does not exist. If I was a member of that discussion group that was so rudely interrupted I would certainly resent the bishop for not engaging me in civil discourse. He scolded them as if they were children - and those people have every right to be indignant because they are not.
I would like to say that I do not think that morality is decided by vote, as has been alleged (although certainly elite councils of cardinals debate, vote, and negotiate on their ideas). Rather, I think that more civil behavior will co-opt more lay persons into active involvement with the Church. Instead, this move is guaranteed to please conservatives.
Sigh.
Verbal diarrhea in love with itself.
I will not remove the issue of abortion from the equation.
Discussion is good, asking questions is good, but only until the truth is known and the matter is settled.
Life begins at conception, the matter is settled by reason alone. Abortion is murder, the matter is settled by reason alone. 50 million abortions equals genocide, the matter is settled by reason alone. Any 5 year old can quote Horton Hears a Who and settle the matter, "a person is a person no matter how small."
Now, if you are the bishop and a group of people are meeting in a church that you own, in a public forum, and are distorting non-teaching documents to the public and lying to the public... By saying that it is okay to support a genocidial maniac (hint:it's not), you would be doing the rational thing by going to your building and publically correcting their public errors.
If you didn't correct their public errors, remember that a 5 year old knows the truth on this issue, people might just think it is okay to support a genocidial maniac. Afterall, the bishop didn't say anything so he must agree.
Sid, Seneca and other sources are all well and good for some matters. But the truth is already discovered on THIS matter. Life begins at conception. Sid, Kant and other sources are all well and good for some matters. But the Truth is already discovered on THIS matter. Abortion is genocide. It sounds like your problem isn't with how be said it, but what he said. A catholic can't support a genocidial maniac. The truth is already discovered on this matter.
It seems, sid, that you just don't like the truth that he preaches.
Let us pray for Bishop Martino and our other brave Bishop's who inspire us by helping us to see that the Spirit which animated the Apostles is indeed alive in them. Hopefully, the US Bishops will realize that the faithful hunger for such love and courage in their Shepherds. Hopefully, the US Bishops have now come to realize that a corporate body like the USCCB can become a place to hide behind...a safe port. But, they and all the faithful are called to set out into the deep. The times we live in demand it! The Good Lord commands it!
May he have Mercy on us all!
Lcb, we may well have reached an impasse. But I think that you are being forceful about an issue on which we all agree (abortion) and I am debating about efficacious use of authority.
Furthermore, both you and Ath have claimed that I am pro-abortion, when I have made no statement to that effect. It is beneath my dignity, however already compromised by involving myself in an internet-forum debate, to respond to such charges. Suffice to say that you and Ath were merely setting up a straw man (and putting my nametag on it) to attack.
And, now that you mentioned sophistry, we might of course comment on your use of it. The moral-competence inversion of a five-year old "knowing the truth" and the adults not? Surely that smacks of the stuff.
The purely Gorgianic symmetry of your statements: "Sid, Seneca and other sources are all well and good ...But the truth is already discovered on THIS matter. ... Sid, Kant and other sources are all well and good...But the Truth is already discovered on THIS matter." These are sophistry.
So it is not that I "don't like" the bishop's "truth." I do not like how he delivered it. Few good things are built on servility. Moreover, to claim that the "only relevant" document is his own letter is just plain hubris. What about even other pro-life Church documents?
And what about undercutting his own colleagues' collective authorities?
And anyway, your attitude towards discussion is not positive. To say that it is just "good" until the "truth is known" is to treat discussion like a toy. It's fun to play with but ultimately unimportant. Discussion is the real substance of exploring issues theologically and philosophically. The Holy Father engages in it, so do the cardinals, and the bishops - so why not this lay panel?
Sid:
You know what? You just love the sound of your voice, don't you?
I know pseudo intellectual narcissism when I see it, and that's all that you contribute here.
You've got a friend in Lucifer.
Sid,
It is charity to allow the mistaken to continue persisting in their errors? Especially when their errors are resulting in a genocidial maniac rising to power?
I did not realize.
The time for dialog and discussion on the matter of supporting genocidial maniacs has long past. Every discussion must eventually end, and this one has ended. A person is a person, no matter how small.
Those who say otherwise are wrong. Those who support those who say otherwise are also wrong.
Sid,
I may be able to respond more later.
For now, let me just say this: The bishop didn't prevent discussion. He didn't stop the forum. He wasn't cruel in his comments.
Cruelty would have been to allow these people to believe that a Catholic can vote for an extremely pro-abortion individual for nearly any reason and still be Catholic. Admonishing the sinner (or potential sinner) is a spiritual work of mercy, and a bishop's duty. That is not forcing, or cruel, or rude, or enslaving. That is the truth, and the truth is freeing.
David,
I have to say that I still disagree with you.
But also, I appreciate your opinion. It is very well-stated and reasonable. And it is very nice to see the use of measured words and intelligent thought from someone on the other side of this issue.
Commenting by HaloScan
