Concern That US Bishops' Conference Folding On Federal Marriage Amendment

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Concern That US Bishops' Conference Folding On Federal Marriage Amendment

USCCB bureaucrats' loyalty to certain Democratic congressmen seen causing waffling

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In his May 14 e-letter, Crisis Magazine editor Deal Hudson expresses serious concern that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) organization may have unexpectedly just deflated efforts to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the US Constitution.

Hudson says that "Of course, the amendment is also running into opposition from homosexual activists and the radical left. But now it looks like it might be encountering resistance from another source… the USCCB". He emphasizes, "Yes, you read that correctly."

The nationally influential orthodox Catholic activist and Washington insider notes that all recent public statements of the USSCB have supported the dignity of marriage and passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. But, Hudson asks "are they now backing away from their previous position?"

Hudson reports that at a recent who's who meeting of religious leaders and several prominent senators that was convened by Senator Sam Brownback, Monsignor William Fay, General Secretary of the USCCB, stated, according to others who were at the meeting, that the bishops didn't want to see the FMA become a "political issue."

This contradicted what the conference stated last September. Hudson says Msgr. Fay was also reported to have made a surprising comment that the bishops didn't want to impinge on anyone's rights, whereas, he notes, "the current language of the amendment says nothing about rights". Hudson continues, "The bishops' conference itself has been clear that limiting marriage in this way isn't an infringement on anyone's rights" and that the state "can justly give married couples rights and benefits it does not extend to others."

Hudson bemoans that "Fay's comments -- if accurate -- are especially discouraging because the 'don't politicize the issue' tactic is identical to what's coming from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). He explains "it's common knowledge that the lobbying staff of the USCCB supports the Democrats on just about every issue but abortion. But the question of same-sex marriage has put these staffers in the tricky situation of needing to support the FMA while also wanting to help those Democratic congressmen who could likely oppose it. No wonder they're hedging on the issue."

"Fay may not be intentionally trying to undermine the amendment", Hudson concludes, "but", he says, "that could very well be the ultimate result... especially if the bishops' conference doesn't start speaking up more forcefully on this."

The USCCB, like the CCCB in Canada, is a non-canonical church organization without any formal teaching authority. Unfortunately, these recently created church organizations and their entrenched, often leftist bureaucrats, have frequently taken liberal, unorthodox positions on issues. They have also somehow managed to intimidate many bishops to abdicate their individual decision making and teaching authority, on many important issues, to conference bureaucrats over the past four decades.

See
Canada Catholic Bishops Plenary Council Neutral on Homosexual Unions
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/sep/03091001.html

 

 



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.

The USCCB, like the CCCB in Canada, is a non-canonical church organization without any formal teaching authority.

This may be true in the Republican Catholic Church, but here is what canon law really states:

Canon 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.


The authority the USCCB has resides in the individual bishops. The bishops in the US report directly to the Pope. The USCCB has no authority over them.

The purpose of the Conference is to promote the greater good which the Church offers humankind, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place. This purpose is drawn from the universal law of the Church and applies to the episcopal conferences which are established all over the world for the same purpose.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.


Here is a list of over 100 places in the Code of Canon Law that the authority of the Episcopal Conferences is described. Pretty impressive for a "non-canonical" church organization, don't you think?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

I didn't say it was not canonical, I wasn't the reporter who wrote the piece. I simply stated it has no real authority over the Bishops in the US, they report directly to Rome. That is why it is not that useful in taking care of issues. It is primarily a teaching institution, an organization to pool researches to produce educational and pastoral items for the US.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 19, 2004.


Mark,

Answer this question -The conference is who?

The Conference has NO authority. The Magesterium has said as much on several issues -referring to it as nameless body without authority... There is no nameless unaccountable authority, especially NOT one that conflicts with Church teaching and or the Magesterium...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 19, 2004.


Answer this question -The conference is who?

Canon 447 The Episcopal Conference, a permanent institution, is the assembly of the Bishops of a country or of a certain territory, exercising together certain pastoral offices for Christ's faithful of that territory. By forms and means of apostolate suited to the circumstances of time and place, it is to promote, in accordance with the law, that greater good which the Church offers to all people.

Canon 449 §2 An Episcopal Conference lawfully established has juridical personality by virtue of the law itself.

The Conference has NO authority.

The authority of an Episcopal Conference is clearly and precisely defined in the list of canons I linked to. Here is an example:

Canon 804 §1 The formation and education in the catholic religion provided in any school, and through various means of social communication is subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the Episcopal Conference to issue general norms concerning this field of activity and for the diocesan Bishop to regulate and watch over it.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.


Any action or teaching, by any bishop, alone or in conference, has NO authority if the action or teaching conflicts with the Holy Father. This is part of Vatican II.

To me personally, the USCCB is often a disappointment.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), May 20, 2004.


Not only that Pat, but in addition, any action or teaching, by any bishop, alone or in conference, has NO authority if the action or teaching conflicts with other bishops. This also is part of Vatican II. This of course, by definintion, would include any new doctrine being proclaimed by the bishop.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 20, 2004.

Pat,

Any action or teaching, by any bishop, alone or in conference, has NO authority if the action or teaching conflicts with the Holy Father. This is part of Vatican II.

The idea that the Bishops are robots who only carry out the orders of the Holy Father is from Vatican I, not Vatican II. Vatican II reintroduced the concept of collegiality, wherein the bishops can actually have their own ideas, even if they differ from the Holy Father.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.



Since neither of you quoted any specific section of Vatican II, this is what I found:

In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation.

For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church, but all of them together and with the Pope represent the entire Church in the bond of peace, love and unity.

The individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church.

For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant. This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called "prelates," heads of the people whom they govern.

The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. Let them follow the example of Christ, who by His obedience even unto death, opened to all men the blessed way of the liberty of the children of God.

---

Proclaiming the teaching of a bishop as being obviously out of line with the magisterium, when neither the Holy Father nor the Vatican curia have done so, is not my idea of "Christian obedience".

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 20, 2004.


THE WORLD OVER: CARDINAL RATZINGER INTERVIEW

The following is a portion of the transcript of the interview by EWTN News Director Raymond Arroyo of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, which first aired on EWTN on 5 September 2003. Cardinal Ratzinger is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, an office to which he was appointed by Pope John Paul II in 1981.

Raymond: Your Eminence, in the United States, the Bishops’ Conference has largely taken the lead, the National Conference in trying to heal and put an end to this crisis. Because there is such a lack of confidence, if you will, among the faithful in their episcopacy, do you believe the Bishops’ Conference to be the best instrument of that healing at this point?. Cardinal: This is a difficult question, as you know.

Raymond: That’s why I ask it. (Both laugh).

Cardinal: On the one hand, I would say a coordination between the bishops is certainly necessary because United States are one great continent and it’s impossible that one bishop has the same discipline as another. So, a coordination is absolutely necessary. In this sense, a coordination between the bishops and common norm is important to guarantee also equality in the different dioceses. I think it is clear the personal responsibility of the bishop is fundamental for the Church. And perhaps anonymity of the Bishops’ Conference can be a danger for the Church. Nobody is personally immediately responsible. It was always the conference and you do not know where or who is the conference. In the sense, I think, a good relation between the two realities is necessary. On the one hand, the cooperation, and the collegiality and so is the equality of the right and norms. From the other, it is a personal responsibility of the bishops that I can know, “This is my part, now, and I am responsible.” And he takes in hand the responsibility in wonderful, but also in difficult things.

hmmm....

Key Point #1 -- coordination amongst the bishops is meaningless UNLESS coordinated with the common norm --->>> Catholic teaching as dictated by the Magesteruium.

Key Point #2 -- where or who is the conference? who is right when there is conflict between the Magesterium and an anonymous conference bishops??? hmmm.... seems an easy decision --->>> Catholic teaching as dictated by the Magesteruium.

I do not think Vatican II allows a conference to contravene the Magesterium -do you suggest this Mark? If not, what point are you arguing?

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 21, 2004.


P.S.

"This may be true in the Republican Catholic Church, but here is what canon law really states:"

????

I take it you argue the position of the Democrat Catholic Church?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 21, 2004.


Monsignor Fay Responds...
CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter
May 21, 2004
**********************************************
Dear Friend,
It looks like last week's e-letter on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) has stirred up some controversy. You'll remember that I told you about a recent meeting convened by Sen. Sam Brownback to discuss the FMA where -- our sources tell us -- Monsignor William Fay, General Secretary of the USCCB, seemed to imply that the USCCB was backing away from the issue.

Well, a couple days ago, I received a letter from Monsignor Fay. He took strong exception to the claim that he was in any way "hedging" on the FMA at the meeting. Here's his letter printed in full -- I think you'll find it interesting...

--- "Dear Mr. Hudson,

"I write regarding an e-mail that Crisis Magazine sent out on Friday evening, May 14th, entitled, "Are the Bishops Folding On Gay Marriage?" In that e-mail, based on comments you have heard concerning Senator Brownback's May 5th meeting on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), you suggest that the current move to pass a federal amendment "might be encountering resistance" from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. To make the point, you string together, based on second-hand reports from "others present," a number of things I am reported to have said; and so your e-mail concludes that remarks I made at that meeting involved "hedging" or offering "a tepid response to the FMA."

"Your characterization of my remarks is a complete distortion of what I said. In addition, a number of other remarks made by me were not reported. Because the Catholic Bishops of the United States have expressed publicly their full and unequivocal commitment to a Federal Marriage Amendment, your reporting will no doubt create a baseless suspicion about the Bishops' position. I cannot take greater exception to what you have written.

"For the record, I spoke twice at the meeting, both times during the discussion period. On one occasion, after having been recognized by Senator Brownback, I said three things.

"1. I thanked Senator Brownback and those senators present with him for convening the group. I stated that I thought what they were doing was extremely important, because the courts had hijacked the question of marriage. I emphasized that the question of the nature of marriage was one that had to be addressed and resolved by the people, not the courts. I stated that I fully supported Mr. Brownback's effort to seek passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

"2. I stated that the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment was a matter that was too important to become mired in politics and too big to be reduced to a partisan issue. In the end, passage of an amendment will need the approval of two-thirds of the Congress and two-thirds of the States, something that no political party can realize solely with its own constituency. I stated that people of all political persuasions have to work together on this, because the nature of marriage is a vital societal issue that affects all Americans.

"3. I said that the effort before us should be kept focused on marriage and that the simpler the amendment the better. Efforts at joining other things to this amendment, like the rights of other groups, should be avoided and addressed in another forum. This movement towards protecting marriage should address the issue of marriage as between a man and a woman, period.

"On another occasion, when asked directly whether the Bishops support a marriage amendment, I answered unequivocally, "Yes, they do; they are on record as having supported it." I also made it clear that the language of any such amendment had to state that marriage was between a man and a woman, and I noted that the Bishops could support nothing in the amendment that violated the doctrine of the Catholic Church. I also mentioned that the Bishops had been actively engaged in the matter of protecting marriage on the state level since 1995 and that with other religious groups we had been successful in having legislation that protected marriage passed in 37 states. (For your information, we began this effort in Hawaii in 1995 and had our most recent success in Ohio earlier this year. I coordinated the Conference effort personally at the staff level as Associate General Secretary from 1995 until 2001, when I became the General Secretary.)

"Following the meeting, I spoke at some length with Mr. Bill Wichterman, the chief policy advisor to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and told him that the Bishops were solidly behind the movement for a federal amendment. I further told him, on at least two occasions, that the Bishops were prepared to marshal as much energy towards the success of a federal amendment as was necessary, including getting our Catholic faithful more active in advocating such an amendment.

"That, Mr. Hudson, is what happened and what I said. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.Cap, who was present at the meeting, has graciously reviewed the above summary of my public remarks and found that it accords fully with his own recollection. I would hope that the Catholic sense of justice that we are all called to hold and to live will move you to set the record straight by publishing this letter in its entirety in your next e-mail.

"Sincerely yours in Christ,

"Rev. Msgr. William P. Fay, Ph.D.
General Secretary
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops"

----

I'm certainly pleased that Monsignor Fay wrote to offer his perspective. I can't help but note, though, that the three meeting attendees we spoke to last week each gave an account that matched what I wrote in the e-letter.

Furthermore, when I phoned him last week to get his side of the story, Monsignor Fay never called back. Instead, we received a call from Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, Secretary for Communications at the USCCB, who said that Fay had insisted that the bishops didn't want the FMA to become a partisan issue. But as I wrote last week, the amendment already has bipartisan support. In fact, the only group that opposes it are liberal, partisan democrats.

So why raise the objection at all?

In the end, there are two ways to view Monsignor Fay's response. He may very well have meant to convey the support of the bishops for the FMA at the meeting, as he says in his letter. The fact that at least three people in attendance didn't get that impression, however, should signal to Fay and others at the bishops' conference that they need to be very careful to make sure they drive this point home. People are watching them closely on this matter, and it's crucial that they not allow themselves to be misunderstood.

Of course, it's also possible that Fay was indeed communicating the USCCB's weakening support on the issue, but that Catholics' strong reaction to this waffling prompted the bishops to snap back in line.

Either way, faithful Catholics have a clear statement from the bishops conference that they will continue to actively support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

And that's good news indeed.
Deal



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.


"I emphasized that the question of the nature of marriage was one that had to be addressed and resolved by the people, not the courts."

hmmm.... The nature of marriage (from a faithful Catholic perspective) is a known fact needing no resolution -politics aside, known Truth should be the loudly proclaimed position of the US Bishops. Reading the above comment it might appear to non-Catholics ignorant in Church teaching that US Bishops and possibly all Catholics think the Truth regarding the nature of marriage requires further resolution...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 22, 2004.



I take it you argue the position of the Democrat Catholic Church?

I argue for the one that holds that Pope John Paul II has the charism of infallibility, not President George W. Bush.

I do not think Vatican II allows a conference to contravene the Magesterium -do you suggest this Mark? If not, what point are you arguing?

I do not suggest that. My direct point is that the quoted article was in significant error as regards the canonical status and authority of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Indirectly, my point is that the author of the quoted article had no problem stooping to spreading lies about the USCCB in the quest of promoting the cause of the Republican party.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 22, 2004.


Mark,

Truth is Truth irregardless of motive, intent, delivery or messenger IT stands alone...

Republican and Democrat agendas alike are judged relative to Truth -- Ascertaining Truth is never an exercise in comparison between two relative things e.g. Republican and or Democrat agendas...

In essence, whether or not one is 'pro' anything does not add to or take away from Truth -IT can not...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 22, 2004.


In essence, whether or not one is 'pro' anything does not add to or take away from Truth -IT can not...

Yes, but the author of the quoted article is so pro-Republican that he has abandoned the Truth. I see no problem in pointing that out, especially when it seems that people, yourself included, have been misled by those lies.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 22, 2004.


Mark,

hmmm...

-where am I misled to? I support the Federal Marriage Amendment, the one President Bush wants...

-simply put, you seem to be misleading yourself away from the Truth via relative rationalization. Irregardless of what the US Bishops do, a reporter does, what political parties do or what a canonist or lay persons interpretaion of Canon Law is -homosexual 'marriage' is something not to be accepted...

This title to this topic concerns the Federal Marriage Amendment -if there is one what is the Democrat and or Kerry position on the issue? -a simple answer without 'misleading' relative argument would suffice...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 23, 2004.


The Democrats do not support and are working to defeat any constitutional ammendment that would define marriage as an institution between a man and a women. They also relate it to an attack on abortion rights.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 23, 2004.


where am I misled to?

That would be here:

Quote from Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 19, 2004: The Conference has NO authority.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 23, 2004.


The council really has no authority over the individual bishops they report to the Pope. The authority the council has is derrived from the fact that they are Bishops and when they speak in union they hold some authority.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 23, 2004.

Mark,

On the authority of bishops relative to the Holy Father, I quote from Lumen Gentium. I'll give you the cite later.

The bottom line is that individual bishops alone, or together in conference, and through their collegiality, do not ever trump the authority of the Vicar of Christ. Without the Holy Father, any bishop, or group of them, has no authority.

Call them robots if you will, I thing the term "instrument" would be more appropriate. We could all grow better in our friendship with Christ if humility were our primary virtue.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), May 23, 2004.


Without the Holy Father, any bishop, or group of them, has no authority.

As I have said, this was the Vatican I teaching. The Church has seen some development of doctrine on this point in Vatican II. I quoted this statement above:

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called "prelates," heads of the people whom they govern.

So whether the term is "robots" or "intstruments" or "vicars" of the Pope; the point is that the bishops are more than that.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 23, 2004.


Mark,

Enuf already senor! The position I take is not Vatican I, it is Vatican II itself. I quote (and EMPHASIZE):

"The college or body of bishops has for all that NO AUTHORITY unless united with the Roman Pontiff, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, as pastor of the ENTIRE Church, has FULL, SUPREME, and UNIVERSAL power over the WHOLE Church, a power which he can always exercize unhindered" (Lumen Gentium 22).

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), May 24, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ