|
If you were to do an Internet search on
the words “Diocese of Lincoln” and “excommunications,”
you would come up
with about 700 different sites addressing
this topic in some way, shape or
form. Some sites favor the excommunications,
others are outraged. Either
way, there’s a lot of talking going on
about this topic.
In case you haven’t had the opportunity
to keep up with this brouhaha,
here’s some background information.
In 1996, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of
Lincoln, Nebraska, issued a “statement
of extrasynodal legislation” in the
Southern Nebraska Register, the diocesan
newspaper, stating that Catholics in
the diocese belonging to one of 12
organizations who did not rescind their
membership would face automatic
excommunication within a month.
The organizations were Call to Action,
Call to Action Nebraska, Planned
Parenthood, Society of St. Pius X, Hemlock
Society, St. Michael the Archangel
Chapel, Freemasons, Job’s Daughters,
DeMolay, Eastern Star, Rainbow Girls
and Catholics for a Free Choice.
Members of many of the organizations
did not respond to the bishop’s
move, but members of Call to Action
did, and they cried foul. They appealed
to both Bishop Bruskewitz and the Vatican.
SPONSORED LINKS
 Who Is Call to Action?
The organization Call to Action came
out of the 1976 Call to Action conference
in Detroit, Michigan, which was
put together by the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops in connection
with the country’s bicentennial.
The conference also came in response
to Pope Paul VI’s call in 1971 for the
laity of the Church to “take up as their
own proper task the renewal of the
temporal order.” He added, “It is to all
Christians that we address a fresh and
insistent call to action.”
Before the conference, however, the
U.S. bishops conducted two years of
hearings as part of a creative consultation
process, a move that led many to
believe that change was possible.
At the conclusion of the conference—which included more than 100
bishops—1,340 voting delegates voted
that the Catholic Church should “reevaluate
its positions on issues like
celibacy for priests, the male-only
clergy, homosexuality, birth control,
and the involvement of every level of
the Church in important decisions.”
Up went the red flag. Many bishops
began distancing themselves from the
group, and Call to Action emerged from
the conference as a lay-run organization.
And the discussion that was
supposed to be fostered came to a
screeching halt. Suddenly “Let’s talk”
became “Let’s not.” Lines were drawn
and communication broke down over
the years into an “us versus them”
mentality.
Fast-forward to November 2006.
Cardinal Giovanni Baptista Re, head
of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops,
sent a letter to Bishop Bruskewitz,
saying that his actions 10 years prior
were “properly taken within your competence
as pastor of that diocese.” The
letter also noted, “The judgment of the
Holy See is that the activities of Call to
Action in the course of these years are in
contrast with the Catholic faith due to
views and positions held which are
unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary
standpoint.”
No other organization cited in the
original edict was addressed by Cardinal
Re’s letter.
So while Bishop Bruskewitz’s actions
may be within Church law, many have
said that the message it gives and the
spirit in which it was done is not. In
fact, according to the 1983 Code of
Canon Law, “A legislator is not to
threaten automatic penalties (latae sententiae)
unless perhaps against certain
particularly treacherous offenses which
either can result in more serious scandal
or cannot be effectively punished
by means of inflicted penalties (ferendae
sententiae).” Furthermore, a legislator
“is not to establish censures, especially
excommunication, except with the
greatest moderation and only for more
serious offenses” (#1318).
When Bishop Bruskewitz first issued
his statement in 1996, the late Cardinal
Joseph Bernardin of Chicago and other
bishops questioned the move.
And no other U.S. bishops have
issued similar declarations regarding
membership in these 12 organizations.
Call to Dialogue
As can be expected, the news 10 years
ago and this past November were met
with press releases and statements
galore. But what was missing and continues
to be missing is dialogue.
And threatening those who do want
to engage in dialogue is hardly the way
to start the conversation. Bishop
Bruskewitz’s actions come off as the
equivalent of a parental “Because I said
so” to the “why’s?” and “why not’s?” of
an adult laity.
We have just begun to emerge from
a very painful time in our Church with
the clergy sex-abuse crisis. Polls are
showing that confidence in our bishops
is growing and so are numbers for Mass
attendance. This raises the question: Is
this really the best time to be showing
people the door? Maybe first we should
seriously talk about areas of disagreement.
What we need is a greater spirit of
dialogue in our Church. And that
means some real, honest, open-minded
and open-hearted dialogue—on all
sides. No more threats, no more name-calling,
no pushing our agendas. Let’s
just talk and listen. In the process we
might learn something or see things
from a different perspective. It can’t
hurt to talk. We are, after all, members
of one Church.—S.H.B. |
