Gosh, David Gibson may have been right in his speculation that Bp. Martino was "pushed," but everything else about his piece is woefully slanted towards the political and religious left. He takes a palpable satisfaction in the putative silencing of Bp Martino.

Looks like we've arrived.

Perhaps the United States' Bishops should consider doing what Our Lady asked in the APPROVED Apparition in this Country-Our Lady of America. She asked that her statue be processed into the Basilica in Washington, DC. Once there, I believe she wished that the United States and the youth of this country to be dedicated to her purity.

We wait.

understand was that a letter to the Pope doesn't let any of us who are guilty of sin off the hook. What was the point of the letter? Public acclaim and vindication. Well, the salvation of one's soul is not done by plebiscite. It calls for an examination of conscience, confession of our sins to a priest and in the case of those who hold high levels of public attention, a public disavowal of our departure from Church teachings, viz the Church's teaching on the grave sin that is abortion and our complicity with it. The reading of a letter by McCarrick is a journey into sentimentalism and an empty gesture. But as long as we can all walk away from the funeral feeling good and self-righteous, what else matters?

What do retired bishops do? Are they stripped of their teaching authority? Do they take vows of silence? This resignation seems "Palin-like."How's that working out for Obama?

Bishop Martino certainly took some hard stands, but that's not the issue with his early retirement. The issue is that he appears to have made himself more into a rules and regs kind of guy rather than a true shepherd. The people rebelled, but not necessarily because of his hard stands. When then-Bishop Burke was in La Crosse, people knew he took hard stands, but they also knew him to be a gentle man who was committed to you and to the truth. He didn't go into meetings unannounced and demand that the people read his letter.

Archbishop Burke's successor in La Crosse is totally unheard of outside of the diocese. Bishop Jerome Listecki, a former auxiliary of Chicago, is just as hard on issues as his predecessor. In fact, he has succeeded in some areas that then-Bishop Burke did not. However, his style is completely different from either Burke or Martino. He's your pal, someone you'd want to play basketball with, or sit down and watch the Cubs lose out on their dreams of a World Series again. This is why he's not making the headlines, but still getting his job as bishop done and done well. Reminds me of a song -- "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

It may be an old traditionalist tactic, but in times like these, the only way I can see to deal with the bishops is to generally ignore them, and not support them financially. Send letters of protest to positions and policies in lieu of Bishops' Annual Appeals. Give your money instead to organizations in the Church actually doing good work.

And by all means take note of their statements, but remember that there are only limited instances in which we are bound to obey them. Reserve docility for those cases, and spend the rest of your time letting them know that you are displeased that they are wolves in shepherds' clothing.

Finally, stay close to the sacraments, and pray. The Church is riddled with apostasy, and this has been prophesied by not only Our Lady, as Anne mentioned above, but other mystics as well.

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich saw the following:

So, follow your conscience and ignore your bishop. Interesting.

There are a number of Catholics who did this very thing when they voted for Obama DESPITE his pro choice record and rumblings from bishops like Martino. The faithful citizenship document is a document that is far more collegial than one bishop's letter. It stated quite clearly that we are NOT single issue voters. That a Catholic of good conscience could vote their conscience so long as they did not specifically support a morally grave sin that is supported by their candidate.

I wonder if you are ok with those Catholics who pray and stay close to the sacraments, but ignore bishops you don't ignore.

My guess is probably not.

Still, I wish you peace.

Steve, although I'm more than sympathetic to your viewpoint, I'd appreciate some explanation of the statement about obeying the bishops. It's been thrown around a lot, but St. John Chrysostom's quote seems more pertinent than ever: "The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and lined with the skulls of bishops." Still. . . .

On what matters may faithful Catholics legitimately dissent from their bishops' teachings? When the teachings are contradictory to -- or by their silence give scandal to -- the Church's teaching on life issues? When money from the bishops' appeals goes to fund huge legal settlements to the victims of priestly abuse? Both seem legitimate to me, BUT I'm just a layman without special knowledge of such things.

After observing the ordeal of Bishop Martino and other Bishops, I am very glad that I am a layman.

Although ultimately guided by God the Father, our Church is certainly human an nature. The early resignation of Bishop Martino may, indeed, have been coerced. Both he, as well as the two cardinals praising Ted Kennedy, don't seem to have picked up how grave the Church rightly views the sin of abortion. Just as important, they haven't taken cues from their boss (the Holy Father) regarding expressions regarding "Catholic" political leaders who do not proactively oppose the slaughter of the most innocent, the unborn. That's political suicide anywhere, whether it's either secular or Church politics.

Some psychologist acquaintances have mentioned to me that Kennedy's behavior of "glomming" on to the causes for the underdog is not unusual for folks who are very dysfunctional in their personal and family life. Another example pointed out to me was the plight of Princess Diana, and her sincere, but not surprising, association with those types of causes. Their work served a good purpose, but the gravitation toward this type of association is not a behavioral surprise. Sen. Kennedy's traits and behavior during his career are well documented, as well as those of much of his family.

A messages that one can publicly take up the causes of the poor and thereby gain enough "Brownie Points" to overcome any culpability for one's actions, or inaction, to prevent abortion is a very mixed message, indeed.

Nice try, Rich. But it's not quite so simple. One can only follow one's conscience and ignore one's bishop when their conscience is rightly formed and the bishop is doing something contrary to the sensus fidei.

If our conscience is based on the commandments, the precepts of the Church, and the definitive magisterial teachings, then we have an objective, even infallible standard by which we may (imperfectly) judge the actions of our bishops, and whether they are in accord with our Catholic faith. Only then can we decide if we have cause to dissent. When a bishop is neglecting his duty, or dissenting from the Faith itself, our dissent is not a protest, but an act of orthodoxy to He to whom we owe our total obedience - Christ.


Dissenting from your bishop because you think social justice issues outweigh life issues, and you are capable of the sort of sophisms of conscience that allow you to cast a vote for the most pro-abortion president in the history of this nation is not the same as dissenting from bishops who fail to protect life and stand up for those same teachings. Just as a sacrament works in virtue of proper matter and form, a bishop's teaching authority works as a function of his adherence to the Church herself, from which his authority solely derives.


Valid question, and one without a simple answer. Beginning again from canon law:


On the most basic level, our obedience to bishops must be analogous to our obedience to the pope. When they teach with the definitive voice of the Church on faith and morals, or when they exercise their legitimate authority over their flock in matters of liturgical discipline or the assets of their diocese.

But things must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. We owe general docility to our bishops when they speak with the mind of the Church. We are under no obligation, however, to support their scandal, nor must we be obedient if they are told to omit or perform certain acts which would be contrary to Church norms and teachings.

Many people do not realize, for example, that the USCCB lacks any binding ecclesial authority. As a body, its decisions only carry weight when the individual bishops of the USCCB put in force those decisions in their diocese, and when those decisions are backed by the Vatican. Similarly, the fact alone that a certain document is "collegial" in no way means that it automatically carries magisterial authority. It must adhere to the perennial teaching of the Church to be authoritative. If it presents mostly opinion ("Built of Living Stones: Art, Architecture, and Worship" comes to mind) then it may be treated as such; individual actions of bishops, such as Cardinal O'Malley's deeply erroneous decision to "preside over" the Kennedy funeral are also not something to which we owe our assent.

The merits of each choice to distance ourselves from our bishops must be made faithfully and intelligently, and at any time we must be willing to submit to the authority of our bishops if we discover that we have chosen wrongly. If we ever choose to "dissent" from our ordinary, we must do so always from the perspective of attempting to be MORE obedient to the Church, not simply our own whims and desires.

The problem is, in the United States, subsidarity has failed.

First the families tried to cover health care. The poor fell through the cracks.

Then the mutual aid societies (personally, I would like a return to this- anybody on the Supreme Council of Knights of Columbus listening?)- but that only covered those who were members of mutual aid societies.

Then employers, which worked for a while. But in today's world, where universal employment is less than 85% of the labor force and a lifelong career is utterly nonexistent, that fails 46 million people.

So we tried the states, or at least Oregon did, with the OMIP and Oregon Health Plan- both of which are so bankrupt that they have waiting lists tens of thousands of people long.

Subsidarity has failed- time for the feds to take over, merely to give the poor their due that the rich won't.

Not Can't. Won't. Yes, I'm blaming everybody who makes more than $150,000/year for their greed causing this mess.

This post reminds me of Chesterton's famous quip: "Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting; it's been found difficult and left untried." (paraphrase, can't remember the original)

We simply don't know what would happen if appeals to faithful citizens for donations (to organizations that didn't waste 50 percent or more of their money on "overhead costs") on behalf of the uninsured would do. That isn't a failure of subsidarity, whatever else one might call it.

Re: the second point ($150,000/year), I'm reminded of Obama's campaign promise to bilk the "rich," the definition of which went swiftly from $250,000 per year to $100,000 per year -- and finally down to $50,000 per year. Numerically trying to quantify who is "rich" and who isn't is silly; if I make $70,000 per year and have eight children in Catholic schools, am I rich? Doubtful.

There are so many dimensions to the arguments against letting the gov't anywhere near health insurance! Who qualifies (illegal aliens? people between jobs? people eligible to Medicaid who haven't bothered to apply?), who pays (the "rich" or everyone?), or how much waste is tolerable (75% overhead? 50%?).

And what about life issues? Yes, I saved that for last. Because, in the end, no one wants rationed care, death counseling, abortions, etc.

I have to agree with Steve here. I had to remind myself on Sunday that the sacraments establish our communion. Sunday's homily was a tribute to Ted Kennedy, complete with re-reading of letters and assertions that we are all imperfect, just like Ted Kennedy who, I heard, always fought for the "marginalized" in society. Abortion, and the Senator's role in legalizing and normalizing the practice of killing the most marginalized population, our unborn children, was never mentioned or even hinted at - although the good Deacon did read Kennedy's self-acclaim for opposing the death penalty! How frighteningly bizarre. Right there front and center of the church ... all I could do was fight back my dismay and pray for all of the souls of the unborn, and all of the women abandoned by pro-choice Catholics. What can you do but pray that God will forgive us this mess - and continue to witness the truth? I know people don't believe me when I tell them that the teaching against abortion constitutes a core teaching of the Church, and who can blame them when even our pastors and bishops turn a blind eye to the practice and honor members whose daily work supports and expands the murderous practice? BTW, I found Father Barron's Youtube on Senator Kennedy very worthwhile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wR_5bV7Glg

Blessed Fr. McGivney tried it. Exactly that sort of benefit for the sick was a part of the Knights of Columbus from 1882 until the 1960s. It failed to take care of everybody, but I count it as our best chance yet of avoiding federal care, if we could just get the Supreme Council to reinstate it, we'd have an excellent way to get converts to Catholicism and men to join the Knights.


You're earning more than poverty level wages, aren't you? Then you have a duty to give the poor their due. Just like I do.


Under Catholic Charity, how can you possibly justify excluding anybody? And as for waste- the real waste is in private industry CEOs and their yachts.

I want death counseling- I want to make sure my doctor knows that I'm a follower of John Paul II, and as such, I want to avoid both euthanasia and unnatural life extension. I want my doctor to know when to call a priest.

Rationed care, I'll agree, is unconscionable- but private industry already rations care, killing 18000 people a year.

I'd also much rather pay for a birth than an abortion- too bad the Republicans failed to pass the Right to Life Amendment in 1973, 1978, 1985, 1992, 1994, 2003, 2005 and 2007.

That fight could still be fought, BTW- but the Republicans refuse to do it.

Ted, I certainly hope someone comes along after this post who can explain things better than I can, although you seem to have your mind so firmly closed on these issues that I doubt even St. Augustine could convince you otherwise. Well, here goes nothing. . . .

Re: getting converts by offering health care, I applaud the idea, really. But I can't see this winning true converts: "Jesus promised you'd be persecuted in this life if you follow Him. Health insurance forms are in the back."

Re: poverty wages, nice baiting technique, sir. I enjoyed it immensely.

Re: exclusions. Well, let's see. I live in Germany (legally, I might add). Germany doesn't seem to think it owes me health care, therefore I took a rigorous physical exam and pay an exhorbitant amount every month for a private insurance polity. Is it the right of the German gov't to decide who does and doesn't get taxpayer-funded health care? You betcha.

Re: rationed care, the fact that it already occurs must mean we should enshrine it as the law of the land, correct? I'd love to find THAT in the Catechism. Paragraph number, please.

And, finally, I don't consider myself a Republican, nor have I for many years. When pressed, I say I'm a Burkean conservative, something that accords perfectly with the Catholic ideal of subsidarity.

I don't personally know what Bishop Martino's leadership style was like. However, based on my fairly broad experience of the Church in America in different parts of the country and my time in the Navy, I would like to say that it is not enough for a bishop simply to be orthodox and willing to make hard decisions. It is extremely important for apostolic fruitfulness that leaders in the Church, especially bishops, have the ability to lead effectively.

Again I don't know the degree to which this may or may not apply to Bishop Martino, but, generally speaking, a harsh, strict, impersonal individual who swoops in and issues dictums and rules to make things better and expects his promulgations to transform things by themselves is not going to be effective. There is a huge difference between truly effective and inspiring leaders (whether military or ecclesiastical) and those who aren't able to inspire and lift the spirits of those under them, though they be orthodox.

We need more men like our present Holy Father, Cardinal O'Connor, and St. Francis de Sales (and Cardinal Cooke, Archbishop Chaput, etc.)--men of firm conviction as well as great prudence and skill as leaders. But such skill does not come easy. And one of the things that seminaries don't presently train men for (at least not in a serious way), is how to be effective leaders of human beings. Yes, there are pastoral education requirements along with the theology courses, but, I seriously doubt if any of them offer truly quality formation in basic principles of effective leadership and management. If a man ordained a priest today does not come to seminary already with good leadership skills, he is not likely to pick them up in seminary. I don't intend to dump on seminaries here because they have a huge task and already do many things--and I think, generally speaking, American seminaries have improved significantly in recent years. Nonetheless, there is a big lack in the formation of American clergy as far as leadership goes. It would be a great addition to the already-ongoing positive development in clerical formation if this gap could somehow begin to be addressed much more deliberately and seriously.

Too often, "pastoral" has become a synonym for "liberal," but I see the point of those who say it may be a question more of Martino's style than his beliefs. But the *nature* of this resignation is very unusual.

The liberals are trying to group Law, Burke, and Martino as all being "silenced," but each is a different situation: Burke actually received a promotion, which is far different from Law being made pastor of St. Mary Major and working behind the scenes on Anglican relations.

But this is totally different, which smacks of either silencing, or else that it really is a health issue.

But I wonder if this means we'll be hearing even less homilies on contraception and abortion now. Bishops like Martino were giving pastors more confidence, and--whatever the reality--the impression and repurcussion is "shut up."

Yeah, the Democrats are doing a bang up job on this issue.

I applaud and will pray for Bishop Martino and his stance for Integrity on being Catholic, Christian, and Pro-Life, something that many of the bean counters and administrators that have over run many diocese in these post Vatican-II days forget, in the pursuit of financial expediency. Certainly we all should love and forgive the Sinner but not the Sin. Abortion is the greatest Sin of this century, it will destroy our entire Christian and Western Civilization from within.

At least Martino knows the lessons of appeasement that many failed to learn in dealing with Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, and now the Muslims and Neo-Pagan Humanist Socialists amongst us in our midst. ....When they came for the Jews I did nothing for I was not a Jew...When they came for....me, there was no one left to save me.....except Christ.

Obviously most of those commenting here wish all bishops were James Dobson wannabes like Martino and Burke.
I am a lifelong Catholic and I proudly voted for Barack Obama.
I have never taken abortion lightly. It is a major reason, for example, that I never voted for Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
But a presidential election is not a national referendum on abortion.
I think many of those who would slap bumper stickers on pulpits are taking other issues lightly. If abortion always outweighs every other issue combined, then there is no limit to how many things an elected official can do wrong, as long as he's "right" about abortion.
That isn't single-issue voting. It's blank check voting. I don't give anybody a blank check.
I don't think most of you would have wanted say, Rembert Weakland, telling you how to vote, any more than I want Burke, Martino, or Robert Finn telling me how to vote.

Hi Bill,

I agree with most of your post, but I didn't get this part. Didn't Obama have a worse abortion record than Clinton or Gore? If so, why did abortion stop you from voting for them, but not Obama? I voted for Clinton both times, but went third party ever since.

Hi Charles!
Your question was an excellent one.
I voted third party in three straight presidential elections (1992-2000) because:
1. I never liked either Clinton or Gore.
2. I didn't like George Bush Sr. either.
3. I might have voted for Bob Dole, whom I liked better than Clinton, but feared he was too old and that hard-core crazies in the GOP-controlled Congress would call the shots.
4. George W. Bush's criticisms of "nation building" and promises of a "humble" foreign policy convinced me (wrongly!) I had nothing to fear from him.
I voted for Obama (and somewhat reluctantly John Kerry) because:
1. The war, the war, the war. It has perverted everything connected to it.
2. George W.'s effort to subvert the justice system (the US attorneys scandal).
3. The scandalous, obscene level of social stratification, with money being thrown at the already rich.
Hope that explains things.

I find the increasingly vocal criticism directed at members of hierarchy by self-described 'orthodox' Catholics a remarkable phenomenon. A decade or so ago, it would have been the NCR-reading 'liberal' Catholics who were publicly challenging the authority of the episcopal hierarchy. But today its loudest critics are often those who very much claim to respect the teaching authority endowed to the bishops through Apostolic Succession.

The Judie Brown column Mr. Hudson mentions is a brilliant example of said phenomenon. Here we have an 'orthodox' lay Catholic penning a very public, very harsh denunciation of a Cardinal Archbishop of the Church. Quite remarkable. I wonder where this is all headed.

Jeremy Kelley
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

If men got pregnant, no family would have more than one child and abortion would be a sacrament.

Several responses to this article have questioned those who criticize the U.S. Bishops, particularly in regard to the participation of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston in the funeral of Ted Kennedy. What these critics seem to have forgotten is that Our Lord did not guarantee infallibility to any of His Apostles, or to their successors, with the one exception of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), whose infallibility is only guaranteed when he speaks "ex cathedra" on matters of faith & morals.

For an historical perspective on all this, recall the early church heresy of Arianism--which managed to deceive approximately two-thirds of the bishops alive at that time--and was successfully opposed by the courageous representative of the "faithful remnant"--St. Athanasius. I believe we are seeing a similar situation in our day...and, again, it will be the "faithful remnant" who will save the Church...