Such a premise of the Synodal Church seems to call into question the doctrinal veracity of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the legitimacy of the 1984 Code of Canon Law.
Even before the removal of Bishop Strickland, some have raised concerns as to why Church leaders have de facto abrogated the teaching on immigration in CCC # 2241,by insisting that the right to migrate is so absolute and that our nation is obliged not only to have open borders, but also to indefinitely provide a whole range of welfare benefits (e.g., food, housing, medical care, education, debit cards, etc.) to anyone entering our nation illegally.
As an aside, one man asked a question. If the right to migrate geographically, without respect for the laws of the nation into which one is migrating, is absolute, is there not also a corresponding absolute right to migrate spiritually into the Catholic Church on one's own terms without respect for the disciplines of the RCIA process and canon law? In other words, is Pope Francis now authorizing us, or the sake of promoting more inclusion, to offer Holy Communion even to those living in sin and even to non-Christians, who experience a "felt need" for the sacrament?
I have listened to Bishop Strickland and read some of his very clear teachings regarding our Catholic Faith and her disciplines, and have found them to be both spiritually edifying and therapeutically challenging. But pastorally, with numerous ambiguous teachings coming from Pope Francis, it has become very difficult to decisively proclaim the Faith. I must merely propose Church teachings and concede that "the supremacy of conscience" may indeed allow for the ratification of the various rationalizations of sin-seared consciences. Admonishing the sinner, which used to be a spiritual work of mercy, apparently is now to be viewed as a sin against the virtue of inclusion.
Sadly, it seems that synodality is being tweaked so as to allow the Roman Catholic Church to be morphed into merely a sacramentally enhanced version of the Unitarian Universalist Church.
I just thought I should let you know as Episcopal Vicar for our region how people are viewing the removal of Bishop Strickland from his diocese.
Fraternally in Christ,
Tom Collins
I hope he doesn't end up on the chopping block.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people feel the need to respond to an issue which is none of their concern.
ReplyDeleteIf I talked about my boss in a vicious manner, stuck my nose in other departments, and supported and defended employees not under my control, and when asked to resign after evidence was presented defining my failures, would I still have a job? Would you?
This is a personnel matter between the Pope and his former Ordinary.
Actually bishops have rights and the pope has repeatedly ignored the canonical rights of orthodox bishops he's persecuted. That's why people respond. In the case you mention of a civil job, such action would result in a lawsuit. This pope is a tyrant, not a father.
DeleteThank you for your response, however I am confused. Can you give examples of how the Pope has repeatedly ignored ' the canonical rights of orthodox Bishops'? What constitutes an orthodox Bishop? There was a canonical process. This process was Initiated with a visitation by two US Bishops, priests and laypeople in the Diocese were interviewed, and a report was filed.
ReplyDeleteAn official recommendation followed, Bishop Strickland was asked to resign, and refused,prompting a rare move by Pope Francis to remove Bishop Strickland. The first such removal of Bishop who refused first to resign during his papacy.
Am I missing something?
Orthodox Bishops are always perfect?
Again, this was not a punishment but an administrative issue which required correction.
A Diocese is an incorporated business.
Bishop Strickland is still a Bishop, and can perform most all the Sacraments. Bishop Strickland however, is no longer an Ordinary (and has no territory)
Blessed Thanksgiving to you and your family.