A prophet or a nut or are prophets and nuts one in the same?
I always loved studying the Old Testament prophets when I was in the seminary. For the most part, they were not willing participants in the call that God gave them, although eventually they did succumb to God's calling grace.
Pope Francis is calling for a listening Church. We live in highly polarized times and the polarized politics of the time, which transcends the Catholic Church but afflicts her too, here in these United States, calls into question just who should bishop listen to?
Normally the whited sepulchers of progressives who advocate for all kinds of heinous, genocidal political policies get an ear, a sympathetic ear. Those with right wing leanings, not so much.
Don't get me wrong. I think all priests should honor their ordination promises of obedience to their bishop and life-long celibate chastity. Of course obedience pertains only to the areas of faith, morals and canon law. Canon law covers a multitude of administrative areas concerning priests, assignment and the like, as well as censure, removal and "defrocking".
The priest who relishes being a persecuted prophet should not complain about being persecuted and take what is dished out to him and to do so humbly:
5 comments:
"Of course obedience pertains only to the areas of faith, morals and canon law."
I believe the deference due to the judgment of a diocesan bishop, underpinned by our promise of obedience, is more expansive.
Bishops also establish policies which may not be based on faith, morals, or canon law. For example, a bishop establishes a policy that requires a parish to have 50% of the cost of a construction project in hand before signing contracts. Pastors, under obedience, are not free to ignore this policy.
Or a bishop may require seminarians for his diocese to be able to celebrate the sacraments in English and Spanish before ordination. Or he may require certain prayers to be prayed at the beginning of the school day in the schools in his diocese.
Or he may determine that, in the face of a global pandemic, public mass is not to be celebrated. A priest is not free to ignore that policy.
Canon Law gives the bishop a lot of flexibility in administrative concerns. While not specific, administration and norms he establishes is protected by canon law. If there is a problem with a specific administrative norm, canon law allows recourse to Rome. But it is canon law that govern it.
Canon law gives a bishop administrative responsibility. While canon law governs that, it does not govern or protect or support policies. He has the right to set policies, but those policies are not supported by canon law.
For example, that the bishop has the responsibility to govern his diocese IS found in the law.
That he chooses to require 50% of the cost of a construction project to be in hand before contracts are signed IS NOT found in the law.
A pastor can disagree and argue with the bishop about the 50% policy as the law does not sustain it. But, because the bishop has the canonical right to govern his diocese, the priest cannot ignore the policy, even though the policy is not in thecanons.
Obedience goes beyond that with is given in doctrine, morals, and canon law.
With all due respect: I could have easily made the same error and do not publish this, just fix your headline:
Illicit- unlawful (adjective)
Elicit- To draw out or call forth (verb)
Father, I think you meant "ELICIT"
I believe this issue is complicated by the fact that the reason the bishop asked Fr. Altman to consider resigning is that a socialist group pressured the diocese for three weeks; that group is now boasting of its victory. The group, Faithful America, is funded by George Soros. As a Catholic trying to be obedient, I am wondering how we should view Fr Altman's unwillingness to resign. I do not believe his bishop commanded him to resign. If it is disobedient for a priest to employ a canon lawyer when the priest believes he is being persecuted with godless intent, what is the purpose of canon lawyers?
Post a Comment