The rector of the cathedral in St. Paul, Minnesota, has reported a case of vandalism to the police. Has someone spraypainted anti-Catholic slogans on the church? Did they smash windows or desecrate the altar and tabernacle? Not exactly.
An informal exorcism performed at the Cathedral of St. Paul this month was more profane than sacred and was directed toward gay Catholics, police and church authorities said Tuesday.
They said the ritualistic sprinkling of blessed oil and salt around the church and in donation boxes amounted to costly vandalism and possibly even a hate crime.
That’s right, someone blessing the church with holy oil and holy salt is a hate crime. Okay, so the oil and salt in the boxes, if true, is a little much, and if someone wanted to bless the church they should have used holy water and not oil and salt, but still I think the rector’s reaction is overkill as is the specious claim of a hate crime. This should make an interesting First Amendment case if the perpetrators are ever caught and tried.
The motive, according to police, is apparently the open-arms welcome extended to Rainbow Sash-ayers who received Communion while protesting the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.
Of course, this is probably the work of a very few misguided and perhaps disturbed individuals, but it will be used to tar all those objected to the homosexual group, just like pro-lifers were lumped in with homocidal maniacs who killed abortionists. (It could even be another case of self-inflicted “hate crime” by gays who wanted to turn public opinion against their opponents. It’s happened before.)
and if someone wanted to bless the church they should have used holy water and not oil and salt,
That’s your criticism?
How about someone asserting that the Cathedral of St Paul has been desecrated and TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES to consecrate the church?
The Church has been concecrated since 1915. It was in no need of an exorcism and the damage done is more than just the stairs and donation boxes. Wouldn’t you be offended if someone decided that your niece wasn’t baptized properly and forcibly did it again?
The motive, according to police, is apparently the open-arms welcome extended to Rainbow Sash-ayers who received Communion while protesting the Churcht_date_gmt>
“Wouldn
Did they call John Paul II first? I don’t think so. The actions of these persons is just as misguided as the actions of the rainbow sashers. This cannot be ignored and this should be seen as vandalism of a sacred place and not a re-consecration. It should also be seen as defiance of the Church in Minneapolis/St.Paul.
Cam
Seamus
And what if in the process, there was a few thousand dollars of damage done? Still not calling the cops? Still ok with just chastising the babysitter?
As I said, the church didn’t need to be reconcecrated. And its offensive for anyone to suggest otherwise.
Jaime: I didn’t defend what was done. I pointed out the absurdity of your analogy. If there was indeed thousands of dollars of damage done, then that’s the issue, not the absence of any “need to be reconsecrated.” But forgive me if I’m sceptical about the whole re-concentration-causing-thousands-of-dollars angle—unless of course an initial consecration requires the spreading of salt and oil that can only be cleaned out at the cost of thousands of dollars. There’s more to this story than what was published.
The point that I was making was not about whether you call the cops. Its whether or not its offensive that any group or individual who isn’t the sheperd of the church, can decide to “consecrate” the Cathedral. It wasn’t necessary. Neither is the rebaptising .
As far as the damage done, everything in the Cathedral is hand carved and original. Wood donation boxes, marble stairs, etc. I don’t think there is a chance that someone is blowing that out of proportion.
This action demonstrates how stupid homophobic people can be.
This is becoming an out of control cascade of over-reaction. Eventually there will be violence and then you will really see fingers wagging.
The Rainbow Sash is a sign of defiance of Church teaching. The “welcome” given to it is a wound to the unity of the Church.
Tactically, this so-called blessing is a bad idea—now the RS’ers are going to claim to be victims because of this.
Seamus, et. al.,
“….a church *can* be re-consecrated.” and “The Rainbow Sash is a sign of defiance of Church teaching.”
Interesting….who exactly re-conscrated the cathedral again? Was it a bishop? It wasn’t. Here is something interesting….Consecration is a rite reserved to a bishop, who by the solemn anointing with holy chrism, and in the prescribed form, dedicates a building to the service of God, thereby raising it in perpetuum to a higher order, removing it from the malign influence of Satan, and rendering it a place in which favours are more graciously granted by God (Pontificale Romanum).
However, the blessing of a church is a less solemn rite, which may be performed by a priest delegated by the diocesan bishop. It consists in the sprinkling with holy water and the recital of prayers, thus making it a sacred place, though not necessarily in perpetuum.
Although, I wouldn’t necessarliy say that it was intended to be the latter, but the former, because oil and salt were used. This is an obvious profanation of the Cathedral of St. Paul. This is not an innocent action, but the action of those who hold contempt for the Church in St. Paul and have taken it upon themselves to be more vital to the Church in Minneapolis/St. Paul than the pastor of her.
Benedict XIV said in the Apostolic Constituion, “Ex Tuis Precibus,” “The ordinary minister of consecration is the diocesan bishop. He may, however, delegate another bishop to perform this function. A bishop of another diocese cannot licitly consecrate a church without the permission of the diocesan bishop, although without such permission the church would be validly consecrated. A priest cannot perform this rite unless he be delegated in a special manner by the Roman pontiff.”
Did they call John Paul II first? I don’t think so. The actions of these persons is just as misguided as the actions of the rainbow sashers. This cannot be ignored and this should be seen as vandalism of a sacred place and not a re-consecration. It should also be seen as defiance of the Church in Minneapolis/St.Paul.
Cam
“Michael Bayly, coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, said such fringe groups perceive gays and lesbians who take communion as evil.”
Note that, in this story, Mr. Bayly is freely allowed to accuse people of “perceiving” gays and lesbians as “evil” if they receive communion, without citing one shred of hard evidence to support his assertion.
Oh…he says he “received an e-mail” from a man who supposedly threatened to douse Rainbow Sash members with consecrated oil? OK, let’s see the e-mail. From whom did it come? What did the e-mail actually say? Has Mr. Bayly referred the issue to local law enforcement, as it supposedly involves the threat of assault? For an issue this serious, I don’t think those Mr. Bayly represents should demand anything less. I certainly don’t.
“Bayly said the same man often shows up at CPCSM and Rainbow Sash events and prays the rosary but staying (sic) apart from group members.”
OK, Mr. Bayly, so which is it? Is this man a member of one of these “fringe groups” – one of those that perceives people for whom Mr. Bayly’s organization advocates as “evil” – or is this guy a lone vigilante, as Mr. Bayly’s description seems to indicate?
If what Mr. Bayly is saying is true, he should show hard evidence supporting his accusations. Accusing someone, or some group, of calling you (or those you represent) “evil” is a very serious charge, and is one that demands hard, incontrovertible evidence before it is made. If he cannot produce such hard, incontrovertible evidence, and if he does not refer the matter to law enforcement, than Mr. Bayly is, quite simply, a phony and a fraud.
“Michael Bayly, coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), an advocacy group for gays and lesbians, said such fringe groups perceive gays and lesbians who take communion as evil.”
Note that, in this story, Mr. Bayly is freely allowed to accuse people of “perceiving” gays and lesbians as “evil” if they receive communion, without citing one shred of hard evidence to support his assertion.
Oh…he says he “received an e-mail” from a man who supposedly threatened to douse Rainbow Sash members with consecrated oil? OK, let’s see the e-mail. From whom did it come? What did the e-mail actually say? Has Mr. Bayly referred the issue to local law enforcement, as it supposedly involves the threat of assault? For an issue this serious, I don’t think those Mr. Bayly represents should demand anything less. I certainly don’t.
“Bayly said the same man often shows up at CPCSM and Rainbow Sash events and prays the rosary but staying (sic) apart from group members.”
OK, Mr. Bayly, so which is it? Is this man a member of one of these “fringe groups” – one of those that perceives people for whom Mr. Bayly’s organization advocates as “evil” – or is this guy a lone vigilante, as Mr. Bayly’s description seems to indicate?
If what Mr. Bayly is saying is true, he should show hard evidence supporting his accusations. Accusing someone, or some group, of calling you (or those you represent) “evil” is a very serious charge, and is one that demands hard, incontrovertible evidence before it is made. If he cannot produce such hard, incontrovertible evidence, and if he does not refer the matter to law enforcement, than Mr. Bayly is, quite simply, a phony and a fraud.
They didn’t reconsecrate it. They exorcised it. If the clergy won’t do it, these people apparently thought they had to. For me, I would have thought it easier to just abandon that church and go to another one. That’s precisely what I would have done in fact.
One has to wonder exactly how much salad oil was involved. I suspect this is more hype than greasing and salting. Some progressive prig has had their sensibilities tweaked, I suspect.
They didn’t reconsecrate it. They exorcised it. If the clergy won’t do it, these people apparently thought they had to. For me, I would have thought it easier to just abandon that church and go to another one. That’s precisely what I would have done in fact.
One has to wonder exactly how much salad oil was involved. I suspect this is more hype than greasing and salting. Some progressive prig has had their sensibilities tweaked, I suspect.
Steve,
Anyone who commits sodomy (“homosexual sexual relations”) objectively commits mortal sin. Anyone who commits mortal sin remains in a state of mortal sin until absolved by a priest in the Sacrament of Confession (or by an act of perfect contrition, which is difficult to attain in practice, and certainly would require, in this case, a renunciation of sodomy). Anyone in a state of mortal sin who takes Communion compounds their sin with the grave sin of sacrilege.
Sacrilege is gravely evil.
These are non-negotiable teachings of Christ’s Church. They will never change. If you don’t believe them, you’re not Catholic. If you don’t believe me, read the Catechism.
Steve,
Anyone who commits sodomy (“homosexual sexual relations”) objectively commits mortal sin. Anyone who commits mortal sin remains in a state of mortal sin until absolved by a priest in the Sacrament of Confession (or by an act of perfect contrition, which is difficult to attain in practice, and certainly would require, in this case, a renunciation of sodomy). Anyone in a state of mortal sin who takes Communion compounds their sin with the grave sin of sacrilege.
Sacrilege is gravely evil.
These are non-negotiable teachings of Christ’s Church. They will never change. If you don’t believe them, you’re not Catholic. If you don’t believe me, read the Catechism.
Seamole –
The reasoning in my post was a bit convoluted. I should have been clearer. I don’t blame you if you didn’t quite catch my points.
I couldn’t possibly agree more with everything you said above. Believe me, I have no tolerance for the Sasher’s actions.
My criticism is aimed at Mr. Bayly, the one who “advocates” for the Sashers. He’s accusing the “fringe groups” that oppose the Sashers of “perceiving” the Sashers as “evil” people – a novel bit of mind-reading in the absence of hard evidence. I should add that I don’t see the Sashers as evil people. I see them as misguided people engaging in behaviors that are objectively evil and that are mortally sinful.
Finally, if Mr. Bayly has hard evidence of threats of criminal assault from someone who opposes the Sashers – the article suggests he does – he should refer the matter to local law enforcement. My suspicion is that this e-mail, or at least what he says are its contents, is a figment of his imagination, and that he’s lying to portray the Sashers as victims for the sake of advancing their cause.
Seamole –
The reasoning in my post was a bit convoluted. I should have been clearer. I don’t blame you if you didn’t quite catch my points.
I couldn’t possibly agree more with everything you said above. Believe me, I have no tolerance for the Sasher’s actions.
My criticism is aimed at Mr. Bayly, the one who “advocates” for the Sashers. He’s accusing the “fringe groups” that oppose the Sashers of “perceiving” the Sashers as “evil” people – a novel bit of mind-reading in the absence of hard evidence. I should add that I don’t see the Sashers as evil people. I see them as misguided people engaging in behaviors that are objectively evil and that are mortally sinful.
Finally, if Mr. Bayly has hard evidence of threats of criminal assault from someone who opposes the Sashers – the article suggests he does – he should refer the matter to local law enforcement. My suspicion is that this e-mail, or at least what he says are its contents, is a figment of his imagination, and that he’s lying to portray the Sashers as victims for the sake of advancing their cause.
“They didn there is a precedent set for certain lay persons being able to exorcize; it is not proper for those today to do so.
“In general, any one who exorcises or professes to exorcise demons (cf. Acts 19:13); in particular, one ordained by a bishop for this office, ordination to which is the second of the four minor orders of the Western Church.”
“The fourth Council of Carthage (398), in its seventh canon, prescribes the rite of ordination for exorcist; the bishop is to give him the book containing the formulae of exorcism, saying, “Receive, and commit to memory, and possess the power of imposing hands on energumens, whether baptized or catechumens”; and the same rite has been retained, without change, in the Roman Pontifical down to the present day, except that instead of the ancient Book of Exorcisms, the Pontifical, or Missal, is put into the hands of the ordained.”
So, even if those deviants took it upon themselves to “exorcize” the Cathedral, it is not justifiable.
“For me, I would have thought it easier to just abandon that church and go to another one.”
Why so flip? The easy road isn’t always the best road. Why not stay and support the Church? Why not take the high road and continue to support the Cathedral parish, properly? Personally, I am outraged….as one who formerly lived in St. Paul and one who had my Commencement Mass there, I find it to be an abomination that anyone would vandalize it. Also, the Cathedral is on the national historic register and to blatantly vandalize a national monument is also an abomination.
“I suspect this is more hype than greasing and salting.”
I suspect not. Thousands of dollars of damage and days of cleaning don’t suggest hype. And if it is salad oil, as you put it, then it really is a sacrilege.
Cam
“They didn
Can you show me a quote or a canon which is more definite concerning exactly who is not allowed by law to exorcise? A statement of exlusivity or unlawfulness would suffice.
Also, from where did the definition come?
*********
On the other matter of staying in the Parish……
Staying in the Catholic church doesn’t require staying in a particular parish. A claim of equivalence requires that it would be so in every case. Rather, it’s a judgmental matter and left up to the particular Catholic. No? Show me a canon law to that effect.
Oh maybe it was olive oil. I didn’t pick up the detail. Do you know how much oil and what kind? I don’t.
Dominic,
I have been replied to above by Cam. I am going to make a comment about logical clarity regarding definitions without intending to cause a problem or dispute anything theological. I am not attempting to “knock down” anything said by anyone else, but only to bring more precision to the discussion. In that spirit,
I assume that the statement
>
On the other matter of staying in the Parish……
Staying in the Catholic church doesn’t require staying in a particular parish. A claim of equivalence requires that it would be so in every case. Rather, it’s a judgmental matter and left up to the particular Catholic. No? Show me a canon law to that effect.
Oh maybe it was olive oil. I didn’t pick up the detail. Do you know how much oil and what kind? I don’t.
michigancatholic,
“Also, from where did the definition come?”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
You’re also just re-hashing and agreeing with me….I said already, “While there is a precedent set for certain lay persons being able to exorcize; it is not proper for those today to do so.”
“After a time, as conditions changed in the Church, the office of exorcist, as an independent office, ceased altogether, and was taken over by clerics in major orders, just as the original functions of deacons and subdeacons have with the lapse of time passed to a great extent into the hands of priests; and according to the present discipline of the Catholic Church, it is only priests who are authorized to use the exorcising power conferred by ordination.”
“In doing so, he is to be mindful of the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual and of the laws of provincial or diocesan synods, which for most part require that the bishop should be consulted and his authorization obtained before exorcism is attempted.”
“Can you show me a quote or a canon which is more definite concerning exactly who is not allowed by law to exorcise?”
The Council of Carthage isn’t enough? If it isn’t, go find a copy of the Rituale or the Pontificale….it’s all there.
“….note that the definition proceeds formally from general to particular.”
Those were two totally independent statements separated by a semi-colon. It was not a philosophical assertation. There is no conclusion drawn for it to be a form of inductive reasoning. Don’t read too much into it…..just read it for what it is there for.
“I didnp:comment>
20518
bwjphotos@yahoo.com
63.100.44.98
2004-11-26 22:01:03
2004-11-27 02:01:03
If my quotes require reference then I can certainly give it
Please be sure to use the appropriate Turabianntent>
Seamus
I understand that you may have your doubts about the story. (As does Dom) I for one do not. Perhaps because it is a personal matter for me since I attend at the Cathedral. (You may be go there too for all I know)
But let me ask you this (crossing two threads) are you going to have the same level of skepticism on the the most recent vandalism thread? That it may be a pro-lifer that did the damage to the statue outside of the Cambridge church? Objectively, I cannot find a reason why one wouldn’t.
michigancatholic,
“Also, from where did the definition come?”
The Catholic Encyclopedia.
You’re also just re-hashing and agreeing with me….I said already, “While there is a precedent set for certain lay persons being able to exorcize; it is not proper for those today to do so.”
“After a time, as conditions changed in the Church, the office of exorcist, as an independent office, ceased altogether, and was taken over by clerics in major orders, just as the original functions of deacons and subdeacons have with the lapse of time passed to a great extent into the hands of priests; and according to the present discipline of the Catholic Church, it is only priests who are authorized to use the exorcising power conferred by ordination.”
“In doing so, he is to be mindful of the prescriptions of the Roman Ritual and of the laws of provincial or diocesan synods, which for most part require that the bishop should be consulted and his authorization obtained before exorcism is attempted.”
“Can you show me a quote or a canon which is more definite concerning exactly who is not allowed by law to exorcise?”
The Council of Carthage isn’t enough? If it isn’t, go find a copy of the Rituale or the Pontificale….it’s all there.
“….note that the definition proceeds formally from general to particular.”
Those were two totally independent statements separated by a semi-colon. It was not a philosophical assertation. There is no conclusion drawn for it to be a form of inductive reasoning. Don’t read too much into it…..just read it for what it is there for.
“I didne with you, but I don’t see any references on those quote marks of yours so I can’t tell where you are getting this stuff. You saying it is….well….you saying it. That’s not a reference.
But anyway, I’m out of this discussion because I don’t want to argue with you. Bye.
Happy Thanksgiving all.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm <——-Part IV. Consecration of a Church.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05711a.htm <——- Para. 1; Para. 3; Para. 4 Exorcist.
A bit odd. However, I guess that I will start treating my posts as my thesis. If my quotes require reference then I can certainly give it, but that kinda takes the fun out of letting others find this stuff.
Especially when I give the source.
Cam
If my quotes require reference then I can certainly give it
Please be sure to use the appropriate Turabianent_date>
2004-11-28 12:40:11
Ya know,
The other side of this is the hate crime aspect of this. Whether we like it or not, homosexuals (both chaste and unchaste) have a voice in this country. They have reached a status that is almost that of minority.
With that being realized (again, whether we like it or not), this can be construed as a hate crime.
Hate Crime: a crime that violates the victim’s civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim’s race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender. (Dictionary.com, happy mich?)
So, with all of this being understood (again, whether we like it or not), what was the motive behind the exorcism/re-consecration of the Cathedral of St. Paul? It was to cleanse it from the allowance of [alleged] unchaste homosexuals to receive Holy Communion. (I say alleged because we don’t know what the motive is, is it the homosexual act itself of merely support of it?)
This fits the definition of hate crime. So, is it a hate crime? I would say at this point, yes it is a hate crime.
Cam
I think the term “hate crime” is about as stupid a piece of political correctness as there is out there. Have we become mind-readers, because that’s what we must be to decide whether something is a “hate crime”; We have to determine the criminal’s state of mind, what they were thinking.
Plus, why should a crime be worse if it’s motivated by hatred? Is it somehow less criminal to assault someone without caring about their race, creed, color, or sexual preference? Is rape a hate crime? After all, the rapist chooses his victims because they’re women. In fact, most crime against persons and property without a profit motive is “hate” crime because it usually involves inflamed passions.
So if you want to say it’s a crime, then say it’s a crime, but don’t bring liberal criminal theory into it.
Dom,
“So if you want to say itnbsp; There is precedent for that too. http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/071303/ala_071303ala006001.shtml )
“Why should a crime be worse if itons of the stone at most, and I would expect churches would ordinarily just accept that.)
I’m not saying that the Rainbow Sashers or their supporters did this, but there is such a history of hate crime hoaxes that that explanation ought to be on everyone’s list of possibilities. There was, of course, Tawana Brawley, and more recently there were Kerri Dunn, the black professor at Claremont McKenna who claimed her car had been vandalized, and the woman on the train in Paris this past summer who claimed she and her baby had been jumped by a bunch of youths who had slashed her clothes and drawn swastikas on her belly. A couple more such hoaxes are mentioned here: http://www.discriminations.us/storage/002314.html
(Actually, the Minnesota case isn’t quite parallel, since in those cases, the victims caused relatively minor damage to themselves and their property, hoping it would be blamed on others. In this case, the “victim” was the cathedral, not the Rainbow Sashers themselves, which means that if the RS’ers actually did do it, they could really go to town and cause substantial damage, since they wouldn’t have to bear it themselves.)
Seamus
I understand that you may have your doubts about the story. (As does Dom) I for one do not. Perhaps because it is a personal matter for me since I attend at the Cathedral. (You may be go there too for all I know)
But let me ask you this (crossing two threads) are you going to have the same level of skepticism on the the most recent vandalism thread? That it may be a pro-lifer that did the damage to the statue outside of the Cambridge church? Objectively, I cannot find a reason why one wouldn’t.
Here’s an objective reason: Because *all* of hate crime hoaxes I’ve ever read about have been perpetrated in the cause of political correctness. The more-orthodox-than-thou crowd are not likely to engage in the self-contradiction of desecrating a church to protest the desecration of a church. Pro-homosexualists, on the other hand, are likely to believe that nothing is more sacred than the autonomous human will, and that traditionalists’ horror of sacrilege of sacred places is a kind of fetish, especially when it stands in the way of the advancement of the autonomous self. Thus, to such a homosexualist, even the desecration of a church may sometimes be a meritorious act, as a church is, after all, just a “thing.”
Here’s an objective reason: Because *all* of hate crime hoaxes I’ve ever read about have been perpetrated in the cause of political correctness. The more-orthodox-than-thou crowd are not likely to engage in the self-contradiction of desecrating a church to protest the desecration of a church. Pro-homosexualists, on the other hand, are likely to believe that nothing is more sacred than the autonomous human will, and that traditionalists’ horror of sacrilege of sacred places is a kind of fetish, especially when it stands in the way of the advancement of the autonomous self. Thus, to such a homosexualist, even the desecration of a church may sometimes be a meritorious act, as a church is, after all, just a “thing.”
The only problem that I see with that reasoning is this.
Crimes of vandalism are perpetrated by stupid people. And stupid people can be on both sides of the argument.
And BTW what is the point of using imaginary words?
The only problem that I see with that reasoning is this.
Crimes of vandalism are perpetrated by stupid people. And stupid people can be on both sides of the argument.
And BTW what is the point of using imaginary words?
Jaime,
I think that “homosexualist” is on the same vein as a “homomolestor.”
And on another note, perhaps more important…..michigancatholic has come to the dark side. She has made a statement that is in total agreement with what we have been saying for the last 7 months….it is, “Do they think that just because we donr_url>
66.255.204.12
2004-12-01 16:22:49
2004-12-01 20:22:49
The missing piece here is, of course, that homosexual acts are mortal sins. Advocating for them and advocating against them are not on an equal footing, morally.
Jaime,
I think that “homosexualist” is on the same vein as a “homomolestor.”
And on another note, perhaps more important…..michigancatholic has come to the dark side. She has made a statement that is in total agreement with what we have been saying for the last 7 months….it is, “Do they think that just because we don//www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-12-02 00:11:29
2004-12-02 04:11:29
NO ONE has the right to desecrate a church or be disobedient to a bishop.ccessors, He did not and does not impart it to them in the fulness of its perfection. Because the exercise of the special authorities depends upon the possession of truth, its possession in any degree less than perfect means that bishops must exercise them in a less than perfect manner. It is not, or not only, the ability to recognize, affirm, or possess the apostolic truth; for the Spirit gives this gift to all believers. The Spirit gives the gift of truth to bishops in a special way for a special purpose, which is to perform their calling in the church. This calling consists of exercising the special authorities outlined just above: they, and they alone, may preach the apostolic truth, impose discipline, forgive or retain sins, administer the sacraments, and ordain. It is obvious that the valid exercise of these authorities presupposes the possession of a special gift of truth. Although this gift is not complete, perfect, or infallible, it is sufficient to its purpose.
cont.
For one thing, it isn’t a missing piece. Secondly, what does that have to do with anything?
Advocating for them and advocating against them are not on an equal footing, morally.
No one… NO ONE has the right to desecrate a church or be disobedient to a bishop. Period. That’s it!! It doesn’t matter if they are advocating church teachings or something to the contrary. It doesn’t matter if the issue is homosexual acts or bad music. IT DOESN’T MATTER!!!
Obedience Mich, that’s it. You cannot be obedient ONLY when you want to. That goes against the definition.
NO ONE has the right to desecrate a church or be disobedient to a bishop.p:comment_author>
camilam42@gmail.com
10.3.0.101
2004-12-02 10:43:31
2004-12-02 14:43:31
The questions were not aimed at me Dom…I was simply giving background on the authority of the bishops.
And I think that you have misread the idea of infalliblity of the bishops. I believe that I have said that they share in the gifts of the apostles, it is not a perfect sharing of the gifts.
“Although He imparted and continues to impart this gift to their episcopal successors, He did not and does not impart it to them in the fulness of its perfection.”
“These were not and never have been infallible.”
But this really doesn’t have anything to do with infallibility of today’s bishops. We know that they can and do err. That was simply to give an historical support to the authority in which today’s successors share.
The crux of this is that while bishops are men and bishops err, they share, by ordination into their office the special gift of truth and the ability to teach it.
We are not obliged to follow any teaching of a bishop, but there are consequences for not doing so.
Now, the idea is not dominion, which I believe is what you are speaking of, but rather authority, which I am speaking of. The bishop, by virtue of his office of successor to the apostles, has an authority that must be adhered to, regardless of his person. However, he is not to lord over those who are his flock.
The questions were asked of Jaime…he is able to answer those for himself, if he should choose to do so.
Cam
We now consider the way the bishop is to exercise his authority. The key to this issue is to keep in mind that kurieuein means ‘to have supreme power or authority over’ or even ‘to lord it over’. (It is also translated as ‘to have dominion’ at Romans 6.9 and 14 and 7.1. ‘Dominion’ suggests complete power.) none of the apostles exercised supreme authority over the church. Moreover, none of them was overbearing. Paul in particular, although never reluctant to assert his authority, did so from love for the brethren. As much can be said for the apostles who wrote the general letters – John above all. Further, Paul in his second letter to Timothy stated that authority was to be exercised gently. (2 Tim. 2.24-6. See also 1 Peter 5.2) By episcopal authority is meant primarily the bishop’s God-given permission or command, and the ability, to originate judgments which are to be accepted as binding by the church or churches over which he has authority. In other words, the bishops’ word was to be obeyed. It means secondarily the permission and ability to perform whichever actions, such as travelling and investigating, that are necessary to formulate and promulgate the judgments. What, then, does it mean for apostles or bishops to have authority but not dominion over faith or (we might infer) any other aspect of Christian belief and behavior? It means that they can command their flocks to believe or act according to their informed and inspired judgments, but that anyone who does not submit voluntarily is not to be forced to do so.
This brings us to consider the penalty to be imposed upon those who are obstinate in their disobedience. Both 1 Tim. 1.20 and 1 Cor. 5.4 state that it is to be a handing over to Satan. It is astonishing that these passages could have been so misunderstood; for the several passages that describe the punishment administered in the apostolic church show that the only penalty is to be expulsion and avoidance. (Matt. 18.17, 1 Cor. 5.4 sqq. and 12, 2 Thess. 3.6 and 14, 1 Tim. 6.5, 2 Tim. 3.5, and Titus 3.10.) This is equivalent to handing over to Satan because expulsion is from the church to the world and the world is Satan’s domain. Of course the bishop may use or invoke physical force to restrain, eject, or forbid entrance to those who are obstinate (or disruptive). This, however, is a temporal advantage that is available to anyone in any organization. Such cases are extremely rare anyway. Normally the bishop’s word should be enough to secure obedience.
Just my thoughts on this….I wrote this paper in 1998. It is part of a 21 pager, but I think that these exceprts speak well enough. Sorry about the double post, but my point was a little longish.
Cam
First, you didn’t answer my questions.
Second, I have never seen a Church doctrine give this meaning to the Scriptures you quoted nor did you appeal to any document of the Church, although there are many that teach on the bishop’s office.
The infallibility of the individual bishop is certainly a new innovation.
As Christians, we ordinarily must be obedient to our bishops, but we have no obligation to be obedient to immoral or illegitimate commands or teaching. I have given specific examples, but you didn’t address them. Must one be obedient in those instances?
The questions were not aimed at me Dom…I was simply giving background on the authority of the bishops.
And I think that you have misread the idea of infalliblity of the bishops. I believe that I have said that they share in the gifts of the apostles, it is not a perfect sharing of the gifts.
“Although He imparted and continues to impart this gift to their episcopal successors, He did not and does not impart it to them in the fulness of its perfection.”
“These were not and never have been infallible.”
But this really doesn’t have anything to do with infallibility of today’s bishops. We know that they can and do err. That was simply to give an historical support to the authority in which today’s successors share.
The crux of this is that while bishops are men and bishops err, they share, by ordination into their office the special gift of truth and the ability to teach it.
We are not obliged to follow any teaching of a bishop, but there are consequences for not doing so.
Now, the idea is not dominion, which I believe is what you are speaking of, but rather authority, which I am speaking of. The bishop, by virtue of his office of successor to the apostles, has an authority that must be adhered to, regardless of his person. However, he is not to lord over those who are his flock.
The questions were asked of Jaime…he is able to answer those for himself, if he should choose to do so.
Cam
If a bishop tells me to teach my CCD class that birth control is okay, I must be obedient? If a bishop tells me I have to cover up the sexual abuse of a child by a priest, I must be obedient?
Must you be obedient to the bishop? Of course you must!!
Should you then teach that birth control is ok or cover up sexual abuse? Absolutely not!!
These two statements are not diametrically opposed. That’s the point that I and Cam have been trying to make
Canon 217 tells us that by virtue of baptism, we have the right to a genuine Christian education
Canon 212 tells us that we are bound by obedience to the pastors of our Church in matters of faith
Canon 221 tells us that we may lawfully defend our right to authentic teaching before the competent ecclesiastical forum
There are people in my diocese (and outside) that feel that Archbishop’s stance on the Eucharist is wrong. They have have a canonical argument. Fine. They enjoy the right to have competent authentic teaching.
However, how did they choose to defend that right? Not by following canon law appealing to the ecclesiastical forum but by forming schismatic groups. That’s the crux of the issue. They want one canon law enforced and they demonstrate that by breaking another.
If I have a problem with what my bishop teaches, I must take action. Why? because the office of the bishop requires me by canon law to defend the faith. I am being obedient by addressing these concerns in the proper manner stated by Canon 221.
If a bishop tells me to teach my CCD class that birth control is okay, I must be obedient? If a bishop tells me I have to cover up the sexual abuse of a child by a priest, I must be obedient?
Must you be obedient to the bishop? Of course you must!!
Should you then teach that birth control is ok or cover up sexual abuse? Absolutely not!!
These two statements are not diametrically opposed. That’s the point that I and Cam have been trying to make
Canon 217 tells us that by virtue of baptism, we have the right to a genuine Christian education
Canon 212 tells us that we are bound by obedience to the pastors of our Church in matters of faith
Canon 221 tells us that we may lawfully defend our right to authentic teaching before the competent ecclesiastical forum
There are people in my diocese (and outside) that feel that Archbishop’s stance on the Eucharist is wrong. They have have a canonical argument. Fine. They enjoy the right to have competent authentic teaching.
However, how did they choose to defend that right? Not by following canon law appealing to the ecclesiastical forum but by forming schismatic groups. That’s the crux of the issue. They want one canon law enforced and they demonstrate that by breaking another.
If I have a problem with what my bishop teaches, I must take action. Why? because the office of the bishop requires me by canon law to defend the faith. I am being obedient by addressing these concerns in the proper manner stated by Canon 221.
The accusation of forming a schismatic group is a serious one, since by your own criteria it is not up to you or me to determine that. You should have followed canon law by appealing to the ecclesiastical forum rather than making a serious charge outside of your competence and in a public forum which may make you guilty of calumny.
That is, if we follow your reasoning.
Cam, I’m not aware that anybody here was disputing that bishops have authority to govern in the Church. I think the main concern is that when the chips are down some of them don’t use it.
The accusation of forming a schismatic group is a serious one, since by your own criteria it is not up to you or me to determine that. You should have followed canon law by appealing to the ecclesiastical forum rather than making a serious charge outside of your competence and in a public forum which may make you guilty of calumny.
That is, if we follow your reasoning.
Cam, I’m not aware that anybody here was disputing that bishops have authority to govern in the Church. I think the main concern is that when the chips are down some of them don’t use it.
The accusation of forming a schismatic group is a serious one, since by your own criteria it is not up to you or me to determine that.
Fine modify my statement to “forming possibly schismatic groups”. Happy?
And it isn’t my reasoning, its ours. Catholics Against Sacrilege, The Ushers of the Eucharist and the whack job that vandalised the Cathedral are wrong in the actions taken.
Have your hypothetical questions been answered effectively ?
The accusation of forming a schismatic group is a serious one, since by your own criteria it is not up to you or me to determine that.
Fine modify my statement to “forming possibly schismatic groups”. Happy?
And it isn’t my reasoning, its ours. Catholics Against Sacrilege, The Ushers of the Eucharist and the whack job that vandalised the Cathedral are wrong in the actions taken.
Have your hypothetical questions been answered effectively ?
“Iction which should never be supported by faithful Catholics.” (Sinner)
“Second, it is precisely the bishops (to a large degree) who have, with their heresy and dissent, led the American Catholic Church toward schism over the years.” (Sinner)
“2) With Flynn, who instead of protecting the Eucharist and its meaning to his flock, fled like the untrue shepherd whom Christ denounces.” (John Hetman)
“From their spineless, disobedient, Satan-enabling ing my questions, no, I’m not really satisfied because I think your answers miss the point and set up a dangerous situation. Again, if we were to follow your prescriptions in the area of sex abuse by a priest, we would be back in the same situation again.
After all, what happens when the ecclesiastical forums you prefer don’t do the right thing, but allow the error and sin to continue?
“Ioil and salt? The monsters!
A few words: A person *can’t* be re-baptised; a church *can* be re-consecrated. And assuming that a person purporting to re-baptise my child didn’t use force or violence in doing so—if, for example, I got home and discovered that the baby-sitter had decided to cast my child in the role of Edgar Mortara and “baptise” her—then about the last thing that would come to my mind would be to call the police and try to have the baby-sitter prosecuted for “assault and battery.” I might chastise the sitter, explain to her that what she did was wrong, even blasphemous, and if she still didn’t get it, resolve never to hire her again, but call the cops? Pul-leese.
Dom,
I really don’t care what others think of me….that is not the point.
I don’t think that I have been negative toward the Church at all. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that you’ll find me being nothing but supportive of the Church.
If that makes me negative, that me a spin-miester, that is fine, it is inaccurate, but nevertheless….
I have a tendency to read everything as it is written. I have a tendency to not beat around the bush. I have a tendency to support Holy Mother Church. I know that it doesn’t make me popular, but then again, I didn’t start coming here because of popularity or to stroke my own ego. Perhaps, it is you who miss the point, which is not predjudical to the Church.
Because this isn’t about me or my views, but those of the Church.
Cam
There you go again: Where did I say you were being negative against the Church?
And it is about your views and your interpretation of what the Church’s teachings are. Those aren’t the same thing.
What do we talk about here at Bettnet, Dom?
We talk about the Church. We talk about issues that relate to the Church. You then go on to say that I respond in a a “negative and prejudical manner.” To what? What others have to say about the Church.
What does that all equate to? Me being negative toward the views of others and the Church.
“You have a tendency to read everything in the manner most prejudical to the person writing it and most favorable to your own point.”
If that is what you think of me, great….then perhaps that is what you think of everyone, because that is precisely what everyone does here.
I am not a man on an island here on that particular issue. But I am an easy “Judas” for those who don’t like having their views questioned.
You are now starting with a red herring….changing the subject isn’t a good practice….even if it is your world.
Cam
After all, what happens when the ecclesiastical forums you prefer donjudgment on whether we would cause a graver scandal by speaking out or staying silent.
This is one of those instances where we must follow our properly formed consciences rather than blindly follow a rule, just because it’s a rule. The rule has a purpose and we can’t let the rule get in the way of the reason for the rule, which is to protect the faith.
This is going nowhere. I’ve had my say and that’s enough for me.
Dom
You’re right in the fact that we’ve covered this ground pretty thoroughly.
I’m glad we agree that the first (and proper) action should be through proper channels.
And we’ll “agree to disagree” on assent and obedience. One final thought and I’ll shut up. “There comes a point” can be a slippery slope. It was not the original intent of Luther or SSPX to cause a graver scandal.