Miami, Fla., Jun 14, 2018 / 04:49 pm (CNA).- What some expected would be a brisk vote turned out to be a lengthy discussion at the USCCB general assembly meeting on Thursday, covering the future of the bishops’ guide to political engagement, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.
At the end of the vigorous discussion, when the bishops eventually voted on the action item June 14 in Ft. Lauderdale, 77 percent supported a measure calling for the production of a short letter to inspire prayer and action regarding public life, and a short video and other secondary resources — to complement rather than to replace the existing Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship document, and to apply the teachings of Pope Francis to our day.
Preceding the debate was a presentation by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, who chairs the bishops’ working group on Faithful Citizenship. The working group is already looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election, and wants to produce “user-friendly” supplements to the document.
Gomez noted that Faithful Citizenship “has lasting value” but is too long, and perhaps not particularly accessible to those in the pews. While it does an excellent job of conveying information, he said the document lacks the ability to inspire voters, “so the task before us is to motivate the people to pray and to act.”
Archbishop Gomez noted three priorities for the working group: reminding Catholics that faith is prior to partisan politics- that faith “shapes Catholics first”, and they are “members of a political party second (or third or fourth)”; that Catholics are called to be faithful citizens at all times, continually; and that public discourse should be always civil.
The first bishop to respond to the Los Angeles archbishop was Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, who said he planned to vote against the working group’s proposal, citing an apparent need to replace Faithful Citizenship with an entirely new document reflecting the “new body of teaching” from Pope Francis on issues including climate change, poverty, and immigration.
“The way he presents those is a body of teaching we need to integrate into what we’re talking to our people about,” the cardinal stated.
He also commended the bishops for their civility in pursuing debates, saying that “Our discussion, even argumentation over various issues we disagree about has the potential to model how public civil discourse should take place.”
Cardinal Cupich, who lost an election to chair the bishops’ pro-life committee to Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas in November 2017, was giving voice to a faction of bishops who have recently called for a significant reworking of Faithful Citizenship, though new revisions were adopted by the USCCB only three years ago.
Archbishop Gomez noted that producing an entirely new document to replace Faithful Citizenship would be a lengthy process, and that “the one we have is very good, theologically.”
Bishop John Stowe, O.F.M. Conv., of Lexington, said he supports the production of supplementary materials, but wants a new document, citing Cardinal Cupich’s concerns, as well as “the new context we find ourselves in after the last election”: environmental policies, immigration issues, nuclear proliferation, and gun control.
Bishop Michael Warfel of Great Falls-Billings echoed concern to include the perspective of Pope Francis in the US bishops’ citizenship guide.
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego charged that the current edition of Faithful Citizenship (last revised in 2015), doesn’t engage with current issues and “Catholic teaching as it is now.”
Since the 2016 election, he said, “legal and political institutions are being atrophied” and we are in “a radically different moment”, noting widespread opposition to immigration, profound racial divisions, and school shootings.
According to Bishop McElroy, Faithful Citizenship “doesn’t reflect the full-bodied teachings of Pope Francis,” mentioning in particular Gaudete et exsultate, saying that a wide variety of issues have “not a secondary, but a primary claim on conscience,” and that Faithful Citizenship “undermines that by its tendentious use of ‘intrinsic evil.’”
Bishop McElroy’s comments seemed to invoke the “consistent ethic of life,” or “seamless garment” approach of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Supporters say the “seamless garment” perspective served to raise consciousness among Catholics regarding a number of issues which threaten human dignity; while critics say that it implied moral equivalency between abortion and other issues, diminishing the significance of abortion, and suggesting that there was not room for a diversity of opinion on other economic and social issues.
This “seamless garment” approach seemed to be rebuffed by St. John Paul II, who identified abortion as a uniquely grave offense against human life, but it has been revitalized by some thinkers in recent years.
Archbishop Gomez responded to Bishop McElroy, praising Faithful Citizenship, and saying that it is already a particularly long document, and a new document addressing new concerns would be even longer.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark indicated he would vote against the proposal, echoing the need for new content in a revision or replacement of Faithful Citizenship, and expressed concern over the “chasm between faith and life,” in which faith has been privatized.
Bishop Robert Barron, an auxiliary bishop in Los Angeles and a member of the working group on Faithful Citizenship, noted that the document is long, and the group didn’t want to make it longer.
“We have to retain a lot of what’s in there now, and we would just be making a much longer document” if it included the “Franciscan shift.” He suggested that instead of a replacement document, video might be a much more effective means for conveying new priorities.
Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington responded that videos have to be quite short to keep people’s attention, and that “we need to rethink” Faithful Citizenship.
Bishop Jaime Soto chimed in to mention the “new paradigm” introduced by Pope Francis, including his encyclical Laudato si’, and said the proposal of supplementary materials might not take that new paradigm into sufficient account.
Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore suggested that the audience for Faithful Citizenship isn’t Catholics in the pews, but pastors and state Catholic conference staff members, and that the working group’s proposal to develop shorter, more consumer-friendly resources “would accomplish the goals I think we had set out for ourselves.”
Bishop George Thomas of Las Vegas called Faithful Citizenship lengthy and cumbersome, and said that it reaches state Catholic conferences and clergy but misses the mark in reaching the hearts of “ordinary people.”
He charged that the document has “serious lacunae,” and that there should be created a shorter, more user-friendly document which follows the model of Pope Francis.
In a carefully-composed piece of rhetoric, Bishop Thomas said the present pope has both substance (he “connects worship and compassion, liturgy and justice”), with an eye on the preferential option for the poor, and style (“he prefers dialogue over diatribe, persuasion over polemics, accompaniment over alienation”), and that the US bishops should take his example and “the content of his teaching” to revise or replace Faithful Citizenship.
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois voiced his support for the working group’s proposal, noting the importance particularly of video for reaching people today — on his flight to the meeting, he said, no-one was reading, they were all watching screens.
He urged that another lengthy document not be issued, and suggested a series of videos rather than a single one be produced, which suggestion was agreed upon by Archbishop Gomez.
Another Los Angeles auxiliary, Bishop David O’Connell, agreed with the proposal and suggested, “we need to take time to think about how Pope Francis’ teachings inform our pastoral practice.”
Bishop John Botean of the Romanian Eparchy of Saint George’s in Canton, was highly favorable to the use of video, but emphasized that “we need to know what will be said.”
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio suggested that the document underlying whatever content is put out is not the question, because “there was consensus” to get Faithful Citizenship adopted, and that the greater question is how to disseminate its message.
Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond indicated his support for the proposal, and added that individual bishops are able to issue pastoral letters themselves.
Intervening again, Bishop Botean suggested that the working group on Faithful Citizenship produce a third item: a new document that expresses current concerns, anxieties of our day, without revising or replacing Faithful Citizenship.
Then Bishop Coyne suggested the conference was not ready to vote: “we’re so divided right now, we’re unclear where we want to go.” He suggested tabling the action item, noting that some, himself included, want an entirely new document on citizenship.
He was supported in that move by Bishop Soto, who said the discussion had given the working group a lot to consider, so that they could return with a “more robust proposal” for the November meeting of the conference.
At this point, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco rose to note the dizzying number of alternative proposals, none of which had been clearly formulated.
A vote on Bishop Coyne’s proposal to table the discussion was held, with two-thirds rejecting his proposal. The discussion continued, focused on developing amendments to the original proposal which might satisfy those bishops with objections.
Cardinal Tobin emphasized that “a number of us are calling for a different source document” to replace Faithful Citizenship, which would inform the content of videos and other new media which the working group would produce.
Bishop Mark O’Connell, a Boston auxiliary, suggested that Faithful Citizenship could be revised, but not replaced, and that the wording of the action item be changed to reflect that.
Bishop McElroy suggested that all reference to Faithful Citizenship be removed from the wording of the proposal.
Bishop McElroy’s suggestion was rejected by the working group.
The working group did, however, concede to changing the language for the pending action item, which was amended to say that the short video and other secondary resources should “complement, rather than replace” Faithful Citizenship (the original had read “complement, rather than revise or replace”). The working group also added a clause saying that newly developed resources should also “apply the teachings of Pope Francis to our day.”
With the revised wording, the proposal came to a vote. The measure passed with well more than a two-thirds majority, though it required only a simple majority. 144 bishops voted in support of the action item, with 41 (just under 22 percent) opposing it.
The discussion was pointed, and took a great deal more time than was anticipated, pushing the public session of the meeting into the afternoon rather than ending before lunch. Faithful Citizenship continues to be the guiding document for civic engagement by Catholics in the US.
Amid repeated reference to “new teachings” of Pope Francis, the unexpected argument demonstrated a deep division among the US bishops.
[…]
Our pastor actually leads the faithful in praying St. Michael and memorare.
Ours, too, along with a prayer for St. Joseph to intercede for us.
What’s going on with you Catholic media you – CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT – people that you show NO OUTRAGE at the damage this Cdl. Cup-sick has done to our beloved Church?. Why are you not shaming him for the heretic he is? When I asked this same question of one of our ‘better’ bishops his answer: ” You don’t understand Michael, they have all the power.” I told him (and Archbishop Chaput before him, of Saint John Vianney’s response:” Anyone who is tolerant of evil when there is cause for holy anger is an immoral man” You Catholic World Report media -types are acting immorally in your lack of HOLY ANGER. Are you not aware ( you E.W.T.N , you Relevant Radio folk and all of you in the Catholic main-stream media.) how faithful, informed, catholic’s everywhere are seething at your lack of action in this regard? Your good Father Fessio said years ago; ” When I die I want there to be blood on my sword.” Hear, Hear! ! But that won’t ever happen unless you take the sword out of it’s sheath. ” If the bugle sound isn’t clear then how can the troops know to prepare for battle? ” You can’t just leave it all to Michael Voris ( God bless him ) and Fr. James Altman, our hero .and the model priest of our times.
Apparently you’re not familiar with CWR…
Blaise setting things a-blaze… Micro-management – – mitres 30 yrs behind…
Dominus flevit!
Father Zuhlsdorf has posted the original video and an update with a message from the Pastor, Father John Trout. The realist in me thinks that this might be more damage control for the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop since the Lightfoot debacle.
UPDATED – VIDEO: Priest announces he and people have been forbidden to say St. Michael Prayer and Hail Mary after Mass.
Seems like micromanagement to me. Why prohibit or discourage heartfelt prayers after Mass? It’s useless because it just alienates parishioners and reflects poorly on diocesan leadership.
Why doesn’t Cardinal Cupich lead the prayers himself, or make any effort to pray the rosary publicly with his parishioners at the Cathecral?
St. Paul teaches that Christians have “the mind of Christ.”
His Eminence Cupich has “the mind of McCarrick.”
It certainly stands to reason that a lot of the current Catholic hierarchy wouldn’t much like parishioners praying to St. Michael. As for poor Mr. Love who wonders what those who recite this prayer are asking to be protected from, apparently he has never heard the prayer, because it is self-explanatory.
That’s what I was thinking; also, EWTN does this after most masses – “protect against wickedness and snares of the devil.” etc..
(Sigh.)
Cupich’s approach to building unity is unbelievable. Absolutely comical.
It reminds me of the old satirical comment on corporate management…
“Notice to all employees: The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
This article concerned me deeply. First, Mr. Love asked, “what are they praying for?” when reciting the prayer to St. Michael. When Pope Leo XIII directed this prayer at the end of Mass, it was because God had showed him a vision of a conversation God had with the devil asking for more time to gather souls. The devil is running out of time and he knows it. The Church is in a crisis and the world is in the worse state it has ever been. The devil is a real threat to the Church and to each individual. In addition, we as Catholics are encouraged to pray for global catastrophes and problems as a parish and as an individual. However, we all should have our own personal relationship with our Lord and Savior and should be encouraged to pray to Him for personal reasons at ant time…in church or at home. In addition, the Mass was over when the two prayers were being prayed, so why all the concern? After Mass is over there is the soft “hustle-bustle” of people leaving the church, talking, cleaning up pews, etc, and people still are able to have the mind-set for personal prayers. Also the Church has taught me my whole life to have a special devotion to Our Blessed Mother. Even Jesus thought highly enough of her to take time while He was dying on the cross for us, to give His mother to us for protection and source of multiple graces. She has been sent by God multiple times in apparitions to warn us that God is displeased about the state of mankind, while she has been giving us directions on how to change…prayer, penance, sacrifice, fasting, and saying the rosary. I personally feel that one Hail Mary prayer at the end of Mass to ask Our Lady’s help is pleasing to her Son, Jesus.
Parsing is the fallback of the disingenuous. It is grievously evident in the statements recorded in this report. It serves no purpose but to magnify the theological disorder current in our Church, a disorder magnified frequently by the Cardinal himself and by his confreres in the school of deconstructionism. This is exactly where the reputation of episcopal untrustworthiness is generated. A Catholicism which articulates “…what are they praying for protection from?” is in the deepest sense clueless and fraudulent. It is not only tragic but scandalous that we find ourselves in this condition.
CWR – Nice job of creating more division., making a volcano out of a fly speck. I would expect this article from the Washington Post . Now you too?
You’re either willingly dismissing or are willfully ignorant of the fact that the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago has a lengthy, well documented dossier of creating division, Jerry. Which is it?
Jerry –
I think that the point being made is that “His Eminence” is the divisive figure.
It’s a healthy thing to talk about Bishops who behave improperly.
The following, which Carl Olson wrote back in 2015, might prove to be edifying:
A Tale of Two Bishops
One Mad Mom weighs in as well:
Cardinal Sit-It-Out Cupich
This is just consistent with a lot of the nonsense during the “pandemic” if you don’t have your pass you can;t come to mass etc…
a little confusion at the end of a parish mass over supplication prayers is not the end of the world – the Bishop should not even comment on it – don’t we want priests who can think on their feet?
My parish in Alexandria VA began saying the prayer to Saint Michael after Mass during the time of the 2002 DC sniper. For several weeks during that time, I recall saying the prayer every time I was out in the open – putting gas in my car, walking a zigzag line into the grocery store, not letting my child out in public. The prayer to Saint Michael comforted me then and even though I no longer live in VA, I continue to recite the prayer almost every day.
Cupich. Enough said.
The same rightist conservative CNA -and also CWR, making a mountain out of a molehill if it concerns Pope Francis and his loyal cardinals and bishops. If those pro-pre-Vatican II mass who criticize the Vatican II mass as celebrated without regard for the rubrics, they should applaud the Cardinal for he is simply upholding the liturgical rules. Prayers like these are not part of the liturgical celebration and can be recited only privately and after the mass itself. Damn if you do, damn if you don’t.
Any idea what “Ite, missa est” means, Charles?
Charles Panata, I am one of those “rightest conservatives” who is fed up with the Vatican Church. They created a different religion that sickens me. Before, during, and after Mass, it’s a free for all for Modernists. Except for Trads. This new one, that of forbidding to pray a prayer considered pre-Vatican ll. It is asked what it is we are praying for deliverance from. We pray for the deliverance of the likes of Cardinal Cupich, and all those who are out to do away with the true Church. We have been coerced to follow and obey their heretical ways and accept the banal ways of the New Church. Doesn’t the Vatican ll prohibit this type of coercion? Yet that’s what has been done for 60 years. Didn’t you know that we are living in the days of the worse major problems in the Church right now? Do you imagine that we Traditionalists are stupid? Think again. We are supposed to follow Vatican ll when those giving us this order are the ones who reject the whole of Vatican ll and make up their own Council as they go along. One of the Major principles of the Council being violated against Trads is “Religious Freedom”.
Charles Pinata, As a Trad I proclaim according to Vatican ll, Religious Freedom! We are ordered to accept the whole of the Council.” What the Council said has now backfired on them.
Independent of whatever the facts are in this case, there is no such thing as a “rubric” that mandates Catholic anti-Catholic bigotry.
I don’t understand what the Cardinal’s issue might be?? Both of these prayers are quite short and would not interfere with anyone’s wish to pray quietly once completed. Gabby parishioners might be the bigger issue following Mass. At my parish the Rosary society prays immediately following a weekday Mass. So here you won’t have any quiet for 25 minutes at least. My guess is someone with an “in” complained to the Cardinal. But I can’t imagine anything stranger than a Cardinal asking the faithful NOT to pray. Especially in this day and age when the country is falling apart. Maybe the Cardinal cannot think of things to pray for, but I sure can!!
Cupich knows who his real boss is. Satan is not happy with the St. Michael Prayer and the Ave Maria.
…And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls
Anen.
“Hatred of the traditional Holy Mass is inspired by the Devil who seeks our spiritual death”-Cardinal Robert Sarah
I would add the same applies to those seeking to ban traditional Catholic prayers and devotionals like the Rosary, Ave Maria and St. Michael prayer. Since these prayers (especially the last one) are designed to protect us from the Evil One, only those who are in service of the Evil One would be opposed to their continued use.
What an incendiary headline! I wonder what is inside the article!?
“The pastor of the church, Father John Trout, issued a statement saying this is not true.”
“CNA asked Torres-Fuentes in an email who gave him the directive to cease the Prayer to St. Michael and the Hail Mary after Mass, but received no response.”
“After contacting other priests in the diocese, CNA found that there was no directive sent to all parishes in the diocese referring to the recitation of the Prayer to Saint Michael or the Hail Mary following Mass.”
What a sham of a website you guys run, LOL! **Almost** makes me feel sorry for ol’ Blase. Can you excise the ‘report’ from your URL?
Blase will gladly sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, Joseph and I’d wager that you’d eagerly write him a check.
“The mass is complete in itself. It does not need additional prayers added to it.” This statement was made by the Bishop of Hamilton, New Zealand in the 1980’s when a similar controversy broke out in my parish there. He also stated people that if people wished, they could have a prayer service 15 minutes after the end of mass thus allowing those who wished to leave to leave and not “force” them to attend a prayer service they didn’t want to attend.
It is really not clear what this article is attempting to report. At this point there is no evidence the Cardinal did in fact do what is being claimed or alleged. The priest responsible for the initial claim will not respond to CWR … How about wait for his response or at least gather more facts on this incident before reporting? Rather than a litany of he said, she said …
“The priest responsible for the initial claim will not respond to CWR.”
No, to Catholic News Agency. This is a news brief, produced by CNA, published by CWR.
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like the pagans, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Mt 6.5-8
So David, based on your remark you obviously reject the Ordinary Form with all of its accompanying vocal participation from the laity and prefer the Extraordinary Form where the laity is almost entirely silent for the entire Mass, correct?
Where two or more are gathered in My name…