Posted on 11/17/2004 11:57:27 AM PST by Pyro7480
Bishops reject Bible tutorial
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The nation's Catholic bishops rejected a proposal yesterday to develop a pastoral statement on how Catholics should study the Bible, over objections by several bishops who said such a move will mean a public relations "disaster" for the church.
Bishops voted 137-102 at the annual business meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to send the proposal back to committee, saying they were burdened with multiple documents and expensive projects and that they had agreed Monday to reduce their workload....
Milwaukee Auxiliary Bishop Richard J. Sklba, who favored the proposal, worried that Catholics were getting too "individualistic" in their Bible studies.
"I worry a bit about an increasingly evangelical slant" among Catholics, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The Old Guard strikes back! (cue Imperial Theme from Star Wars)
"and my peers were making comments that were rather un-Catholic in viewpoint."
Ahhhhh, maybe that is just what is needed??
At a Catholic chapel, even a liberal one? I don't think so!
Bishops' statement on Bible study sent back for review
By Patricia Zapor
Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops Nov. 16 took to heart the resolve they pronounced a day earlier to control the number of projects the conference undertakes and voted to put off issuing a pastoral statement on the use of the Bible by Catholics.
The proposed pastoral message would include a theological overview of Catholic teachings on the Bible. It would use research by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate based at Georgetown University about Catholics and the Bible as the basis for instruction on teaching about it and studying it.
The recommendation for the statement came from a task force appointed in August 2003 to review the findings of the CARA study, which was commissioned by the bishops' conference. The task force comprised of five bishops would oversee hiring a writer for the statement, which would be submitted for approval by all the bishops next November.
Task force chairman Bishop William B. Friend of Shreveport, La., noted in introducing the proposal that funding would be sought from outside sources to pay the costs of developing the pastoral statement. Sales of the publication would be expected to cover the costs of printing it.
But in discussion about the proposal, several bishops rose to question whether it was appropriate to be developing something new that had not gone through review by a formal committee and advance approval of expenditures, as will now be required under rules they agreed to a day earlier.
The new procedures were prompted by concerns raised by bishops in the last few years over how to control costs and the increased number of projects undertaken in their name.
Auxiliary Bishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Diego questioned whether it was appropriate to be adopting two documents that did not go through that new process. A National Pastoral Initiative on Marriage was scheduled to be discussed and voted on the same day.
"The issue is, are we doing too much," said Cincinnati Bishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk. "It seems we are saying we are going to go on a severe diet sometime next year. In the meantime, let's have another helping of what we are used to."
Brooklyn Auxiliary Bishop Joseph M. Sullivan warned that, if the bishops put aside the pastoral on the Bible in light of the previous day's actions, the next day's newspaper headline would be: "In an attempt to cut expenses, bishops decide not to encourage reading the Bible."
Several bishops rose to support the pastoral statement, arguing that especially in areas with large numbers of evangelicals the Bible is an important part of ecumenical efforts.
Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb of Mobile, Ala., said "it would be a disaster" in terms of public relations and in certain joint ventures with other faiths to set aside the statement.
"There should be some respect for initiatives that are already underway" when the new procedures were adopted, he said.
Archbishop Pilarczyk had the last word before a vote on his motion to send the pastoral statement idea back through the committee process.
He reminded the bishops that the conference does not exist "for good public relations, but to do the work of the church."
"The issue is not whether it's a good idea (to encourage study of the Bible) or whether we should follow the processes approved yesterday," Archbishop Pilarczyk said. "The question is whether we are serious about what we did yesterday or not."
His motion was approved by a 137-102 vote.
The public portion of the meeting was adjourned for the day before the bishops could get to the marriage initiative.
END
Plus, what's the need for a new 'statement'? Why don't they just point to the Catechism?
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.'"112
Every catholic knows to read the bible... we hear it at Mass every day and complete passages are read aloud on certain holy days (thinking of lent). But we are lazy and I think because we have such a huge amount of spiritual material in print, we do not always put the bible first and foremost on our reading lists. It's not something that can be read right through at a few sittings and it is something that needs to be read slowly so you can reflect and understand it.
It seems that the conference weighed the cost and effectiveness of issuing some kind of print material on this commonly understood/common sense issue against the fact that the conference just agreed to cut down on all the print pronouncements it makes.
This is something each bishop can do in his own diocese... put the onus on the priests who are the ones who have contact with the laity. Write a column in the diocese's weekly newspaper. Put a sheet in the parish bulletin. Not something that requires the usccb.
Lol, generally I don't agree with things that come out of the pre-Dolan Milwaukee world. But in this case, Bishop Sklba might be right, God help us. Anyway, the bishops saying that they shunted off this project because they were resolving to focus and not overextend themselves is a load of malarkey. Asking the USSCB to restrain itself is like expecting Congress to exercise fiscal discipline.
"For if, as Paul says, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, and if the man who does not know Scripture does not know the power and wisdom of God, then ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."
-St. Jerome, "Against Vigilantius"
LOL! How right you are!
So do you think the usccb should have issued a document on this subject?
At least in regard to what Catholic teaching is on Scripture, they should have issued something.
It's a worthy cause but best dealt with in each diocese, by each individual bishop - no committes to study the issue needed.
So we should have it covered, I'd say. While there are individual American bishops I haven't given up on, I don't trust the American bishops acting as a body to produce anything reliable in matters of doctrine, liturgy, or the time of day.
Why do we need to re-invent this wheel?
I actually think that the USCCB and even the Holy See comes out with too many documents. They should apply their energies to promoting the doctrine of the faith and running the Church in accordance with existing rules. Sometimes clear statements are needed to correct erroneous doctrine or practices, but new documents also might themselves contain problematic statements.
Bump to read later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.