Bishop vs. bishop

By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 11, 2004

As the American bishops prepare for their closed-door meeting in Denver, the vice-president of the US bishops' conference demonstrates his collegial attitude by calling for respectful dialogue-- and then thoughtfully mentioning that a few of his colleagues are divisive figures with a tendency to "bludgeon," hinting that they are "unkind" and "cruel," because the are "using Eucharist as a weapon."

Read the full column by Bishop Skylstad, and see if you can find an similarly harsh words about pro-abortion politicians.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 16 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Jun. 17, 2004 11:19 AM ET USA

    Jn J Plick: Does not our culture forms us to, rather than accept correction, cut ouirselves off even more? Does "Lambs in midst of wolves" mean "do not trigger adversarial situations?" Mustn't Apostles be prepared to speak the truth, but lose their battles? Pat

  • Posted by: - Jun. 15, 2004 8:57 AM ET USA

    I think the Bishop would make a good candidate for the Primate of the ECUSA.

  • Posted by: Japheth - Jun. 14, 2004 7:02 AM ET USA

    Why do the bishops allow politicians communicate with Our Lord despite their willingness to let others kill innocent children and Notre Dame refuse to allow Paul Hornung to communicate to ND football fans when his sole crime was to make a politically incorrect statement?

  • Posted by: Gil125 - Jun. 13, 2004 5:27 PM ET USA

    Maybe Bp. Skylstad has inadvertently done his more conservative brethren a favor. They may have been deterred from speaking out against (leftist) (open-minded) (loving) (heretical) [choose one or more] bishops by their vaunted if unwritten rule of collegiality. Now that he has clearly laid that to rest, perhaps the faithful ones will feel freer to criticize.

  • Posted by: John J Plick - Jun. 13, 2004 1:04 PM ET USA

    Dear Pat, A) Judas Iscariot is NOT the usual case, and B) There is reason to believe that Iscariot left BEFORE the final CUP and finally, C) Contrary to popular belief, EXCOMMUNICATION and EXCLUSION when properly done in clear-cut cases is an ACT OF MERCY..., and that's Scriptural..., unless of course you believe that it is merciful to let people swallow poison.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 12, 2004 8:59 PM ET USA

    Our Bishops are fence straddlers. Make no decision unless you are absolutely forced to do so by circumstances. Even then they procrastinate. Nothing will be done to the "Catholic" politicians who enable the murder of innocent children but if the liberal and secular press has a cause you can be sure our Bishops will jump on the bandwagon. When they finally do make an official statement on Communion it will be buried in 25 other meaningless reports. It will also be long after the elections .

  • Posted by: - Jun. 12, 2004 6:25 PM ET USA

    We are gradually find out which Bishops must go! To suggest that the common good is more important than salvation of souls is heretical. They are complicit in sacrilege to give Kerry or any "catholic" pro-abort the Eucharist, and are knowingly condeming themselves to hell. I see no other way to look at. You don't need to be a theologian to figure this one out.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 12, 2004 5:51 PM ET USA

    Is every act of love to a (presumed) sacrilegious communicant treachery? How about the designation "friend" as addressed to Judas? How about the presumed sharing of Holy Communion with Judas at the Last Supper? Jesus' sacrifice reaches its zenith in the act of forgiveness, but should this be construed as complicity in sin? Is the Church, are the bishops not to be like Mary, Refuge of Sinners? Pat

  • Posted by: - Jun. 12, 2004 3:33 PM ET USA

    His Excellency Bishop Skylstad is a heretic.

  • Posted by: John J Plick - Jun. 12, 2004 8:34 AM ET USA

    I would resolve my position definitively on this issue if I were you, Diogenes, and would stop being so speculative and suggestive in my writing. This is definitely NOT a minor issue and with the obvious counterpoint of the upcomng "Year of the Eucharist" will no doubt establish the spiritual destinies of millions within our Catholic Church within a very short time, Bishops included. "God iis no respecter of persons." (Holy Scripture) After grace comes judgement.

  • Posted by: John J Plick - Jun. 11, 2004 9:12 PM ET USA

    You know, Diogenes, I even wonder if propagating the words of this misguided bishop serves the interests of God and of His Church. Personally, I have no use for the words of ANYONE who characterizes clear and open desecration of Eucharist as an act of love..., and anyone's attempt to prevent it as an act of aggression. His (the bishop's) argument reminds me of Judas Iscariot, who likewise cllothed his treachery under an outward act of affection and intimacy. JP

  • Posted by: Jim E - Jun. 11, 2004 6:50 PM ET USA

    Agreed that persuasion and education on abortion / conscience formation are essential elements of the work of bishops.But what have they been doing over the last 2 decades or so? If bishops believe that the Eucharist is truly the body and bood of Jesus, how do they propose to avoid its desecration when an individual who publicly repudiates universally agreed upon doctrine of serious matter still seeks to receive communion? This is not a political issue; it is a moral issue of magnitude. Help us

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2004 2:50 PM ET USA

    The majority of our bishops aren't Catholics in the sense that faithful laymen are. For us, being a part of the Church is having the opportunity to serve Our Lord. For our bishops it is the opportunity to be served as the religious wing of the dying leftist establishment. And one thing you don't do is cut off members of your clique. These are the people who can do for you. That's why Kerry and other pro-abort pols rate all the compassion and understanding that traditionalists never receive.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2004 2:00 PM ET USA

    The Bishops are dancing around the issue. The question is will they defend the Faith from heretics. The heresy is that I can be in full communion with the Catholic Church even though my views conflict with Faith and Tradition. It would be as if the Bishops of today would allow someone to publicly state and support the old Arian heresy and still call themselves Catholics. The Bishops of that age excommunicated those that promoted that heresy.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2004 12:17 PM ET USA

    Elaborating on my previous post. The logic of implicit excommunication would go like this. If those who visibly reject Church teaching through obstinate dissent (e.g. support state approved murder) are allowed, as a matter of policy, to receive the sacrament of Communion, those who agree with the teaching, would be unable to receive without engaging in a lie, viz. that they are in communion the obstinate dissenters. Again, I hope this is not the case. Perhaps the answer lies in humble obedience.

  • Posted by: - Jun. 11, 2004 12:16 PM ET USA

    I don’t have a theological background and am hoping someone can comment on an aspect of the Communion debate that I have not to see raised. My question is, if the Eucharist is, among other things, a sacrament of communion, would an official statement by the bishops to the effect that people known by public actions to dissent from Church teaching cannot be prevented from receiving the sacrament effectively excommunicate obedient Catholics who accept Church teaching. I hope this is not the case.