I agree completely that the bishops have been absurdly lax and, in some cases, positively sinful in their neglect of office. They have earned the distrust of their flock and they will have to labor to regain it. But for our part as lay people, we are still bound to extend charity wherever possible, while simultaneously being wise as serpents and not allowing our bishops to get away with gross neglect of their office when the media lights fade and the interest is diverted elsewhere.
This calls for more fidelity to the Catholic faith, not less and for hearts open to mercy and charity and closed to bitterness and cynicism. That is only possible by the grace of Christ.
Let us pray for one another as we struggle to be agents of the Spirit's grace to the Church. We've been through much worse times as a Church. Let us embrace the work God has given us in our time and see it through so that our children have the Catholic faith given them, purified of the sins of our time.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
****
Dear Catholic Exchange,
Your articles on anti-Catholicism come to mind when I see the fankle the British Conservative Party is getting into over its Leader. Probably the best candidate they have for taking over from Ian Duncan Smith is Ann Widdecombe, but she has about as much chance as a snowball in Hell due to being a convert to the Catholic Church. She is the type that makes a speech without a script and is therefore much more convincing than other possible candidates. I understand Ian Duncan Smith is a Catholic and I was surprised they elected him. He is an ex-fighter pilot who was probably trained to be cool, calm and collected, so he is coming across as lacking passion and charisma. I reckon he was chosen simply because they wanted a leader who would be anti-Europe. I find it annoying because I was coming around to the Conservative thinking about Brussels imposing their will on the British. Previously, I did not trust the Conservatives when it came to civil rights in Ulster. I felt they were more sympathetic to the Unionists. Some of their number can also come out with remarks hostile to Scots, due to their lack of voter support in Scotland.
Peter Tulips
S.W.Glasgow, Scotland
Dear Mr. Tulips,
Thank you for informing us that our political problems are mirrored elsewhere and reminding us that our fellow Catholics around the world are wrestling with similar issues in seeking to apply the principles of their faith in the public arena.
Blessings,
Mrs. Mary Kochan
Contributing Editor,
Catholic Exchange
P.S. We haven't a clue as to what a fankle is!
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
Dear Fellow Faithful Catholics,
May Christ be between us. I am forwarding this article because I need to have some advice on allegiance to our American Catholic Bishops. They currently make me pale. I am personally appalled by Bishop Reilly's statement in this article that on one hand he opposes same sex unions — but that it is “inevitable” that they receive the same “benefits under law” as married couples, and he will no longer oppose that!?
I have been a Catholic five years now, and so believe in the Magisterial teaching of The Church. But I am increasingly appalled at the side-stepping and watering down I see in the American Bishops in much of their collective and some individual response to Rome. Other cases in point: the letter signed by a hundred of more priests in one diocese in the mid-west calling for permission for priests to marry; the lack of substance at the last Bishops gathering: Here we have children being systematically raped and they spend time on when it is or isn't liturgically correct to sit, stand or kneel!? Their complete lack of forth-rightedness in addressing issues regarding homosexuality among priests and most especially in the seminaries; and to make it short: Liturgical “wimpiness”. It seems to one who has come into the Fold late, they seek to do “the bare minimum”/ or to be politically correct as opposed to Shepherds with a Divine Calling and Commission.
I know this is not all the Bishops, however it is evident in so much of what I see and hear today in regard to Our Church. I live in the much battered and beleaguered Boston Archdiocese, the epi-center of the sexual scandal in the last few years. Though hopeful in our new Archbishop O'Malley, it has been such a rough storm for the faithful to have ridden. We still need to heal. If this stings a soul that has pledged deep allegiance to Christ and His Holy Church, what must the heart of God Feel when He Sees us? Sometimes I think we are all going to hell in a handbasket!
Any advice you could give would be most welcome. God Bless you in your great work and thank you for your wonderful website!
In his Mercy,
Christine
Dear Christine,
I won't make a bunch of excuses for what Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has called “this hapless bench of bishops.” They are indeed an uninspiring lot quite often. However, they are not bishops because of their native holiness, just as our fathers and mothers are not our parents because they were saints.
So the first thing we have to remember is that “Honor your father” is a command that is ordered precisely toward the fact that there are moments when we are tempted to do anything but that. There is no command to obey the law of gravity because we will most certainly do it. But the commands to honor our parents (both natural and spiritual) are there because there are moments when we see no reason on earth to do so.
So begin there: with the revelation of God which commands us to extend love and honor to our bishops unconditionally for the sake of Christ.
After that, try to be as patient as possible. One thing that can happen after a series of wrongs is a sort of tendency to assume the worst. So, for instance, the assumption becomes that if the bishops meet for any reason other than to do something about the Scandal, they are avoiding the issue. But the fact is, they have to do other stuff besides attempt to address the Scandal (such as try to regulate the liturgy and curb liturgical abuse). That's actually an expression of their taking their work seriously. Similarly, it is arguable that the bishops are “reading the signs of the time” when it comes to same-sex benefits. That does not mean “caving to pressure”. It means recognizing that, whatever they say, the secular powers have made gay adoption and even surrogate parenthood permissible, so that that denying benefits to same-sex couples now punishes innocent children. Since part of the task of the Church is to care for children, it is therefore arguable that a bishop might approve of this. It is not, at any rate, a slam-dunk easy answer.
