How do you address a bishop? Eminence, Grace . . ?
As I understand it, the very formal salutation for Bishops is “Your Excellency” and “Your Eminence” for Cardinals. In practice, the more usual salutation for Bishops is “Dear Bishop Lastname” although the more formal “Your Eminence” still holds generally for Cardinals. “Your Grace” is not commonly used among American Roman Catholics.
(Even so, an Archbishop used to tell the story of being greeted by a child after Mass with “Good morning, Archbishop.” The mother then corrected the child, “Say ‘Your Grace.’” The child then blurted out, “Bless us, O Lord, and these Thy gifts...”)
"Dear Bishop So-and-so" works. More formally, "Your excellency" is suggested. "Your eminence" is reserved for cardinals. "Your grace" is used in Europe, not common address in the US.
Thanks for the info. Now what are the plural forms? Your Excellencies, Your Eminences, Your Graces (reserved for Europe, as noted)?
Do you honestly think Our Lord Jesus Christ cares whether they're addressed as
"May it please Your Eminence"
Or
"Dear Cardinal McCarrick"
I have a hard time believing it would and if it doesn't bother the Lord it jolly well shouldn't bother the likes of McCarrick.
How can any bishop equate killing the innocent for convenience, executing the guilty, immigration policy and state funding for parochial schools?
Bishop Ricard seems to be trapped in the old seamless garment framework that created such confusion among politicians in the first place.
Moral confusion among politicians has its origins in their reliance on polls as sources of moral truth and in society’s embrace of "cafeteria morality."
With all due respect to your eisegesis, the antithesis to moral confusion is a consistent moral framework (with its own hierarchy) such as that advocated by Bishop Ricard et al.
Okay, here's mine.
Dear Bishop Ricard,
Should politicians be responsible for the religious formation of Catholics?
Many Catholics are confused by the stance of politicians that says, “I personally do not believe in abortion, but I cannot in good conscience force my personal beliefs on others.” When politicians are allowed to use this argument without rebuttal, Catholics without a good grasp on the subject assume the politician is using an acceptable argument. If the Bishops are silent about this, then they obviously have no problem with it. Therefore this must be a legitimate Catholic stance; that while one may believe abortion is murder, one should never presume to keep anybody else from murdering if it is their desire to do so. Most people can figure out what is wrong with this logic, but some are truly ignorant, and they are being misled.
Please, please, do the right thing. Insist that if a Catholic politician speaks or votes against Catholic belief, he or she wi
Haloscan cut me off. The nerve.
As I was saying . . .
Please, please, do the right thing. Insist that if a Catholic politician speaks or votes against Catholic belief, he or she will be identified as someone in defiance of Catholic belief, not as a good Catholic or a good example.
You cannot possibly know how many people are praying for you. There is strong support out here for you and your brother Bishops to really shepherd your people. It is very hard to be heard above the voices of VOTF, the media, etc, but we are here. Please don’t let us down again.
It staggers me that some US bishops knew of some Catholic politicians pro-abort. stance, and never said anything right when it occurred.
Just out of curiosity, do any of the bishops on this task force have a track record of speaking out against pro-abort "Catholic" politicians?
If not, it seems like it would have been sensible to have a Chaput or Bruskewitz included in the group to help show them the way.
Gray E
The seamless garment argument gave Democrat politicians cover to claim that they supported "Church" teaching on the arms race, the minimum wage, welfare, immigration, etc. and that the totality of their positions should be the basis for judging their loyalty to their Catholic faith, rather than simply their position on abortion. Mario Cuomo is notorious for making this argument.
This framework conflates the leftist agenda of the NCCB bureaucracy with the timeless teaching of the Church about the sanctity of life.
It seems that Bishop Ricard is still thinking along these lines. We'll see.
With all due respect, Bishop Ricard’s statement gave clear priority to the issue of abortion, so it is somewhat imprecise to characterize it with words such as “equates” and “conflates.”
“Cafeteria Catholicism” is not the sole possession of liberals and the timeless teaching of the Church embraces more than a single issue. Although there is a hierarchy to the Church’s moral teaching, adherence to that teaching on some issues should not give anyone a “pass” to disregard what Catholic tradition says on others.
One can respectfully and legitimately disagree with some of the concrete implementations of Catholic social teaching suggested in statements by Church leaders when they are matters of prudential judgment (as many are). Sadly, some Catholics have twisted this concept in an attempt to justify their political stand on abortion and this has motivated the current campaign.
However, even when disagreements of prudential judgment are legitimate, we should always give careful con
(As I was saying...)
However, even when disagreements of prudential judgment are legitimate, we should always give careful consideration to statements by Church leaders on social and other issues, because beneath the concrete suggestions (which we might too hastily dismiss as “a leftist agenda” – just as the liberals dismiss Church statements they don’t like) we can indeed find the timeless teaching of the Church. Liberals and conservatives may disagree on the best way to bring it about, but no matter who we are it is our obligation as Catholics to strive continually to grow in our understanding of that teaching and to implement it more effectively.
Save your postage.
These guys are not newcomers to the art of quisling cowardliness. Many on this list have been bishops for more than a decade.
You're not going to tell them anything new. And they are not going to do or say anthing new.
The battle is for the laity. The Church has abandoned the struggle.
With all due respect, cynical despair is not the best strategy or method of institutional advancement.
Clergy and laity each have their role in this effort and should be mutually supporting (which was Mark's point, I guess).
"Your Grace", even in Europe, is generally for Archbishops and Dukes.
In Old France, Cardinal Archbishops were ranked with, but after, Princes of the Blood Royal in protocol. Not that you cared. 
Mais oui!
Is it not pathetic that the state of the American Church has fallen so far that those who have resisted joining the New Gnostics have been reduced to lobbying bishops as though they were politicians before an important vote?
12 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
