« Once more to the Blue Mosque | Main | Wasn't that a Carly Simon song? »
December 08, 2006
More Lincoln
After the Vatican decision, Bishop Bruskewitz said he felt a duty to lead the people under his pastoral care away from organizations perilous to the faith.
"Parents have to tell children that they can't test everything in the medicine cabinet or drink everything under the sink," the bishop explained. "The church is our mother and gives us these instructions as protection against dangers we might not perceive. ... It is liberating, not enslaving."
The bishop said he hopes people affected by his ruling will remedy their situations without delay.
"The Lord loves everyone and died for everyone, and he wants all to be saved," he said. "The best lesson that can be learned from everything that has happened is that one finds happiness, joy and satisfaction in obedience to the church."
Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Ore., was vicar general of the Diocese of Lincoln in 1996 and general secretary of the diocesan synod that issued the decree of excommunication.
Upon hearing of the Vatican's response, he said, "There never was any question of the bishop's right to do this and the suitability given the circumstances. I'm pleased to see that the Holy See has publicly affirmed Bishop Bruskewitz's decree and authority."
Reactions, via the Lincoln paper:
Local CTA member Jim McShane, who signed the original appeal of Bruskewitz’s ruling, said the local group has never received any response from Rome or been given the opportunity to state its case to Vatican officials.
“This letter is very unfortunate,” McShane said. “I’m deeply distressed by it. There’s every evidence that Rome is acting on misinformation.”
Rather than getting correct information about the beliefs and purposes of Call to Action from members of the organization itself, Vatican leaders have received incorrect information from Bruskewitz, McShane said.
For example, today’s Register article includes a list of claims about Call to Action which McShane says are not true — such as that CTA members do not support the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of faith for Christians, or that they consider belief in the incarnation (divinity of Christ) to be optional, and doubt Jesus’ virgin birth.
“No one in CTA has ever suggested that I give up the Nicene Creed” or other basic doctrinal beliefs, McShane said.
McShane also pointed out that Re had his name wrong in the letter — calling him John rather than Jim. He also took issue with Re’s statement that McShane and other members of CTA “will understand that their line of action is causing damage to the Church of Christ.”
Rachel Pokora, president of Call to Action-Nebraska, said she plans to continue attending church in the Lincoln Diocese and taking communion, as she has in the past.
“It will be interesting to see what the implications (of Re’s letter) are,” she said. “Will other dioceses take stronger actions against Call to Action?” So far, Bruskewitz is the only bishop to issue an excommunication ruling.
Patty Hawk, a Nebraskan who is co-president of the national board of Call to Action, expressed chagrin that the Vatican did not respond to the CTA’s requests for due process and that Bruskewitz chose to communicate through the newspaper rather than talking with CTA members directly.
“It makes me sad that this is the way Bishop Bruskewitz has chosen to deal with members of his faith community,” she said.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
News Flash: Vatican and Bishop uphold Church teaching. Those who don't like being told they're wrong continue to go against Church teaching.
Huzzah for Bishop Bruskewitz and the Vatican!
Posted by: JPH at Dec 8, 2006 3:05:50 PM
"It makes me sad that this is the way Bishop Bruskewitz has chosen to deal with members of his faith community." kind of begs the question, doesn't it?
Posted by: Ferde Rombola at Dec 8, 2006 3:13:25 PM
“It makes me sad that this is the way Bishop Bruskewitz has chosen to deal with members of his faith community,”
Huh!?
Actually, it is quite sad this is the way these people have chosen to deal with their bishop. He is the Bishop, after all, and St. Ignatius of Antioch would invite us to respond to our bishop as if he were Jesus Christ.
Posted by: FrKeyes at Dec 8, 2006 3:27:23 PM
I generally support the good bishop on this one, however, I think he should be kind enough to pronounce the excommunications of specific individuals. Without this all the people involved are left under a cloud without the ability to appeal (the congregation only judged the general statement, that is why no one could give evidence). If he pronounced the excommunication against someone, then that someone would then have a right to appeal (until he does no one can appeal). I have little doubt that if he pronounced the excommunication against anyone attending the SSPX, the excommunication would be thrown out. (This happened to a group from the SSPX in Hawii). As I said I generally back the bishop, but feel that it is an act of cowardice on his part not to pronounce the excommunications, or forbid those involved from receiving the sacraments. (At the time he issued the statement he was asked what he would do if someone approached him for coummunion from one of the groups, and he said he would assume they went to confession and therefore give them communion). It seems he did this because he knows he is probably on shaking canonical grounds, and that if he does not enforce the excommunications, no one can appeal. The statement from Cardinal Re does not change that.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Dec 8, 2006 3:43:49 PM
Is it true that false complaints were lodged? (eg, not believing in the Nicene Creed) Is there a way to check this?
Mary MacKillop, Mother Guerin, Joan of Arc, pray for us.
Posted by: mb at Dec 8, 2006 3:56:01 PM
"Parents have to tell children that they can't test everything in the medicine cabinet or drink everything under the sink."
So the people of the good bishop's diocese are to be thought of as children.
Hmmmm...
Posted by: Peter Nixon at Dec 8, 2006 4:33:10 PM
Peter,
Would you prefer sheep?
Posted by: Fr. Dan Andrews at Dec 8, 2006 4:43:17 PM
What about their defiance!
The president of CTA of Nebraska publicly declared that she will receive communion in Lincoln anyway.
The just don't have any respect for church authority. It is also irritating how the press misconstrues their beliefs. CTA also supports groups in the church who support abortion and same sex marriages. More so, they advocate the elimination of the hierarchy as we know it.
Thier communion with the universal church is like calling Nancy Pelosi a conservative Republican.
They are so far outside of Catholic mainstream - so bitter, so angry, so full of hatred toward the Tradition of our Apostolic Fiath - that it is completely understandable why the good bishop had excommunicated them.
They don't like the Catholic Church. They don't like her symbols, her faith, her beleifs, her priests, her bishops. There is nothing good that can come from her, CTA followers seem to say.
Posted by: DJP at Dec 8, 2006 4:44:20 PM
Well, if responsible, sensible adults still don't know not to drink the stuff under the sink, you have to meet them where they are.
Unless, of course, CTA is not poisonous. In which case it's a deeply unfair analogy.
Posted by: Joe Marier at Dec 8, 2006 4:44:38 PM
Well, if responsible, sensible adults still don't know not to drink the stuff under the sink, you have to meet them where they are.
Unless, of course, CTA is not poisonous. In which case it's a deeply unfair analogy.
Posted by: Joe Marier at Dec 8, 2006 4:44:40 PM
"Parents have to tell children that they can't test everything in the medicine cabinet or drink everything under the sink."
After many years on the Internet and spending time among folks with high IQs... I would say that this is exactly the way you have to treat the vast majority of people.
Those who already know about poison safety won't be offended by a reiteration.
Everybody else will either listen and learn, or complain afterward that they'd never been told and there was no way they could have known.
Likewise, our founding fathers enshrined the principle that "men are not angels" in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because they understood this bit of human nature.
Smart people do plenty of stupid things, and good people do plenty of wicked and selfish things, and there isn't anybody who's above a reiteration of the basic safety rules.
That's why a bishop's role is not an executive to employees, but as a teacher to the ignorant, a father to children, and a shepherd to easily scattered sheep -- who keep insisting on getting themselves eaten or stuck on cliffs.
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 8, 2006 4:51:06 PM
Peter Nixon: Jesus himself called your namesake & his friends "children" when the morning he made them breakfast on the beach. Please! A humble heart realizes the truth & embraces it.
Posted by: gb at Dec 8, 2006 4:58:32 PM
“...members of his faith community,” she said.
"Faith Community"?
Ahhhhhh, gag! modernist alert!!!
Posted by: ioannes at Dec 8, 2006 5:01:54 PM
It sure is disheartening to read many of the comments on the Lincoln paper's site. So much ignorance, bigotry, and illogic.
I fully support Bishop Bruskewitz's decision to excommunicate these folks. I can't comment on how pastorally it was handled, since I'm not familiar with that aspect of the situation. The problem is, no matter how pastoral Bruskewitz is about this matter, he's not going to win in the eyes of the media, non-Catholics, and (most importantly) a large portion of nominal Catholics. Mainly this is because excommunication is not routine. If every bishop did stuff like this, Bruskewitz would not stand out. But because he is doing this alone, he stands out and it's very easy for the ignorant and the bigots to target him as an extremist. This is the tragedy of having so many lukewarm bishops in this country over the last two generations. A historical, biblically solid, and sadly necessary Catholic practice like excommunication looks extreme and out of place. The regular folks in the pews are so unaccustomed to this practice and so ignorant of the reasons for it, that they can't rationally deal with it - and often all the other aspects of orthodox Catholicism. They lack so much understanding of the faith and are so conformed to this age of hedonism and relativism that they can't see things like excommunication as anything other than nastiness, a power ploy, or some other cynical thing.
The good bishop will also draw lots of attention towards CTA - attention that CTA wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Unfortunately CTA types thrive on getting attention and copping a martyr complex. I think this is why they don't just become Episcopalians or Unitarians. No one would pay any attention to them if they did that. If they stay in the Catholic Church and make a big stink, people pay attention. So whatever Bruskewitz does, the adolescent desires of CTA are going to be satisfied. They either get portrayed as courageous martyrs or they get to quietly go about their business rotting the Church from within.
I do not envy the situation the good bishop is in! It's sad to know that the cowardice of his brother bishops over the last 40 years have made this already difficult matter even more difficult than it had to be.
Posted by: AJP at Dec 8, 2006 5:02:25 PM
Christopher, I've known Bp. B for quite a few years. If he and his (VERY competent staff) think that CTA 'denies the Nicene Creed,' that means that, in fact, CTA's published statements somehow or other directly contradict one or more elements of the Creed.
B. doesn't "make stuff up" for show.
Posted by: dad29 at Dec 8, 2006 5:26:40 PM
Is it true that false complaints were lodged? (eg, not believing in the Nicene Creed) Is there a way to check this?
You could check with the person who wrote the story. Which (ahem) is me.
I gave the paper a table that I had constructed regarding the differences between CTA and the Roman Catholic Church. Under "statement of faith" I put "Nicene Creed" for the RCC and "undefined" for CTA. That's because I couldn't find a statement of faith on their web site. On another site, I did find a liturgy that they wrote where the Nicene Creed was replaced with something else. However, I couldn't say that this alternative creed was actually CTA's official statement of belief. So I thought "undefined" was the best way to state it. I think Mr. McShane misrepresented what the chart said, but I understand he was really upset at the time.
Regarding the Incarnation, I listed that as "optional" for CTA because they had speakers at the National Conference telling people it was an optional belief and "opening the dialogue" for alternative interpretations.
I found another site that said they had speakers at the national conference that said Mary got pregnant "in the usual way" (or something like that).
The other statements on the chart came right off the CTA website: support women's ordination, oppose priestly celibacy, etc.
Posted by: Sparki at Dec 8, 2006 5:29:38 PM
All issues are not created equal, some are still open for discussion, such as ordaining married men or even the election of bishops (it has been done in the past and some of our greatest Church Doctors were elected bishops, a few who were not even priests at the time of their election). CTA though, seems to have latched onto a large number of issues which are not open to discussion, such as contraception, abortion, women ordination, same sex unions and a slew of other issues which are actually against Catholic dogma.
One need only look at their web site to see the issues they support.
My shock is that more bishops or Rome itself has not taken direct action against them.
Posted by: TerryC at Dec 8, 2006 6:45:14 PM
The group is called "Call To Action," and the Bishop took action. So why are they complaining?
Posted by: Dan at Dec 8, 2006 6:51:52 PM
Well I like to think I'm a reasonably humble fellow, but I still found the bishop's remarks off-putting. You can warn me about dangers to my spiritual health while still considering me an adult. Yes, Jesus used images of "sheep" and "children" but He also called us "friends."
I feel no need to mount a defense of CTA. I find their 70s-era modus operandi rather tiresome and their leadership has shown some rather staggering errors in judgment over the years. They have long since ceased to be a significant influence in the life of the Church.
But what does it say that no other American bishop--not Dolan, not George, not Vigneron, not O'Malley, not Meyers, not Chaput, not even Burke--has taken this approach?
Last time I checked, prudence was still one of the four cardinal virtues.
Posted by: Peter Nixon at Dec 8, 2006 6:56:25 PM
Some people here are forgetting this fact: Excommunication does not mean the Church is kicking you out. It means that you have chosen to separate yourself from the Church. "Prudence" would advise the excommunicants to reconsider their choice.
Posted by: Tim at Dec 8, 2006 7:06:41 PM
Pray for the foolish woman who says she will continue to receive Communion anyway. As if the excommuinication weren't perilous enough, now she plans on eating and drinking her own damnation.
Very serious, very sad.
Thank God for men like Bruskewitz.
Posted by: Thomas at Dec 8, 2006 7:13:09 PM
"But what does it say that no other American bishop--not Dolan, not George, not Vigneron, not O'Malley, not Meyers, not Chaput, not even Burke--has taken this approach?
Last time I checked, prudence was still one of the four cardinal virtues."
Prudence is as much a reason to take action as a reason not to take action. I find it odd that it's usually only the latter situation that's invoked.
It's possible Bishop Bruskewitz has more time on his hands to deal with the headaches such excommunications cause. Lincoln is hardly the size of Chicago.
Out of curiosity, who was the last American excommunicate? Feeny?
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 8, 2006 7:34:15 PM
I think this is why they don't just become Episcopalians or Unitarians. No one would pay any attention to them if they did that.
I'm inclined to think that if the Bishop didn't excommunicate them then no one would pay any attention to them either. I don't question the bishop's right to excommunicate them, though I do question his prudence. My judgement in this matter may be off, but it seems to me that CTA's days are past and the publicity from this excommunication simply puts it on life support for a while rather than letting it die a natural death.
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at Dec 8, 2006 7:34:51 PM
F.C.,
When the fate of souls is at stake, I think the bishop did well to ignore "political" ramifications such as bringing attention to a dying ideology, lest souls die with it. Remember, more than a punishment, excommunication is a wake-up call.
Posted by: Thomas at Dec 8, 2006 7:59:02 PM
I'm not sure it sounds like the CTA folks are getting woken up. But I guess time will tell.
Posted by: F. C. Bauerschmidt at Dec 8, 2006 8:01:23 PM
