Bishop Olmsted Urges All Catholics to Oppose Rule

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix has become one of the first Roman Catholic bishops in the nation to openly defy the Obama administration over new rules forcing employers to include access to contraceptives and sterilization procedures in health-insurance coverage.
Although the Catholic Church itself is exempt from the proposed regulations, Olmsted believes the federal government's decision is an attack on religious liberty. He is encouraging church members to actively oppose it.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/01/27/20120127phoenix-bishop-defy-feds-birth-control.html#ixzz1kzWHic1b


Phoenix Catholic Diocese Bishop Thomas Olmsted says an Obama administration rule requiring health insurance plans to cover contraception and sterilization procedures is wrong, especially as it affects Catholic-related institutions.

While the Catholic church itself is exempt from the provisions of the law, Olmsted says other organizations, such as charities and hospitals, that are Catholic in belief but not directly related to the Catholic Diocese.

He urges all Catholics to oppose the rule.

Phoenix radio station, KFYI: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/local_news.html?feed=118695?feed=118695&article=9679458#ixzz1kzSMOiwo

Free Exercise of Religion

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights,” Archbishop Dolan.

Papal Authority

In a recent discussion which began at BeggarsAll - Mr. John Lollard responded to some of what I said.  His response to me was not really the topic of that discussion so I am responding here under the subject title of what he said.

Mr. Windsor,
You had said:

So, based on this fact it is our position that St. Peter was indeed our first pope AND he was contradicted, as recorded in Scripture, by St. Paul. Thus, I have fulfilled the request to demonstrate from OUR TEACHING and OUR PERSPECTIVE how even a pope can be contradicted.

We read in Scripture"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong... The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabbas was led astray." Galatians 2:11-13
So we see, your first pope was not only contradicted, but he was clearly wrong and through following him many - even Barnabbas - were led astray.

I have never held a position that a pope could not ever be wrong.  It seems like so many Protestants are of the opinion that papal infallibility equates to papal impeccability - and that is simply not a valid equation.  The point of the episode in Galations 2 is only partially about St. Peter being wrong on that point - but also that not only was he contradicted by St. Paul, but CORRECTED by St. Paul.  St. Peter did not remain in error.

It's a strange situation, you insisting that popes can be wrong and induce their followers to moral error according to Scripture, the Protestants that you "are bound to submit to this power" as per Vatican I.

There seems to be a word or phrase missing in that sentence, but I believe I'm following what you're saying here.  You're saying it is strange that I insist the popes can be wrong (and induce their followers to moral error) AND that I also insist that Protestants are "bound to submit to this power" per Vatican I.  You can correct me if I'm wrong in restating what you said.  Now for my response:

1) Yes, popes can be wrong. 

2) Catholics are followers of Jesus Christ.  The pope is simply the current successor of the one whom Jesus empowered to "Feed My sheep" in John 21.  Jesus, the Good Shepherd, as He was departing this world, gave St. Peter that command in threefold manner - making it clear that St. Peter would be His vicar in His absence. 

3) That Protestants are bound to submit to this "power" - is a truism.  Yes, Protestants are indeed bound to submit to the will of the Shepherd and therefore be shepherded by the one whom Jesus "empowered" to be his stand-in.

Continuing...

How did we end up in opposite world(s)?

I would not say we're in opposite worlds!  We both have a love and fervor for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  We're separated primarily by a movement which represents only a portion of 25% of the history of Christendom.  That movement, primarily started by Martin Luther (though I would say he was more of a political pawn of the German princes) is not "opposite" of Catholicism - just separated from it.  An "opposite' world would be one of atheism or perhaps one which follows a different god or gods.  So, while we are not opposites - we're also not "one" as is the Will of Jesus - that we may be one, just as He and the Father are One (John 17:21).

All the same, I'm glad that you apparently no longer believe in the authority of the pope; 

Now hold on a moment!  I have not rejected the authority of the pope!  Just because popes MAY be wrong and even HAVE been wrong many times throughout history - starting with our first pope - does not mean popes do not have authority given to them by Jesus Christ!  You're making quite the non sequitur here!

he's just some guy saying stuff, and whatever, who cares what he says if he doesn't make any sense with it.

He's more than "just some guy saying stuff!"  He DOES have authority and all faithful Christians are bound to obey him so long as he's not asking us to do something immoral - and in the example from Galations 2 we're not talking about a matter of morality, but of discipline.  St. Peter was asking Gentiles to ACT like Jews - and St. Paul corrected him and insisted he (and by default "we") not expect everyone, especially converts from non-Jewish faiths, to act like Jews.  Again, DiSCIPLINE not MORALITY.

He doesn't have any more authority to teach than you do, or than anyone does, 'cause he's just some German guy living in Italy. 

Well, as I've already said, he's much more than "just some guy" and he was empowered by Jesus Christ Himself to a position of authority - and his successors have that same authority.  

You should really look at whether what he's teaching is right, not on the office of the person teaching it.

Oh, I AGREE!  We should ALWAYS be mindful of what he's saying!  However, that does not change the fact of the matter relating to the office he holds.  Similarly, though not identically (as no analogy may be exactly equivocated) the President of the United States holds an office - and whereas I may not AGREE with him in everything he SAYS - once he signs a law into effect, as a citizen of the United States, I am obliged to OBEY that law.  Failure to do so will have consequences.

Bravo! I'm glad you're willing to make such an admission! :P

Likewise, I'm glad you're willing to admit that St. Peter was our first pope and that this "German guy living in Italy" is the successor of that "Jewish guy who lived in Jerusalem, Antioch and died in Rome!"  ;-)

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Transubstantiation

What, exactly, is Transubstantiation?  If you break down the word it is not too difficult.  The first part, "trans" means "change" and the next part "substantiation" comes from the word "substance" and the "tion" part indicates it is an act or action.  Putting it all together, it means a "change of substance" or the process of changing a substance from one thing to another.  The change may not be in what you "see" - but in the "substance" which truly "is" what something "is."  

This is what happened when Jesus took bread, and blessing it He said, "This IS my body;" and with wine He declared, "This IS My blood."  Sure, it still looked like and tasted like bread and wine, but upon the declaration of God Almighty Himself, it became His body and blood!  Who are we to disagree or argue against the very Word of God?  He also didn't stop there!  He added, "Do THIS as often as you partake in THIS."  That command was given to the Apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church and they, in turn, pass on this authority to their successors and give faculties to local priests to "Do THIS" as well.  Any "church" which does not profess THIS is NOT the Church which Jesus Christ built.

The Empire Barks Back

A hopefully not-so feeble attempt at humor for James Swan...

God Changed His Mind?

In many confrontations with Calvinists they will argue the "Sovereignty of God" and that God does not "make up His mind" based on the actions of men - arguing that this would put the Will of God "hostage" to the will of Man.  Let the objective reader then consider Jonah 3: 

⁸ But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. ⁹ Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”
 ¹⁰ When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. (NASB)

⁸And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands.
⁹Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish?
¹⁰And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.  (DRB)

⁸But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
 ⁹Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
 ¹⁰And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (KJV)

⁸ People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence.
⁹ Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us.”
¹⁰ When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened.  (NLB)

Was God "held hostage" -OR- is it according to His Sovereignty that He GAVE mankind the ability to choose and to repent and that IF man does repent, He is able to "change His mind?"

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Faithful Catholics May Disagree

To which extent may faithful Catholics disagree with each other - or even disagree with a sitting or past pope?  This post is in response to one which began over on BeggarsAll.

A blogger who goes by the name of Constantine said...

I'm curious about the “freedom to discount” claimed by EA and John.

In 1879 Leo XIII writes in his encyclical Aeterni Patris, “Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors.” (Paragraph 31)

Earlier in this letter – paragraph 21 – Leo quotes half a dozen of his predecessors in support of Thomism as the official Catholic philosophy. One indicative example is Urban V, who Leo quotes as having written, “"It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same." (emphasis added). I take it to mean that when a pope “enjoins” something, it is necessarily official doctrine – not “semi-official”. (And Leo is here reaching back into 500 years of Catholic history for support.) Is it fair to consider these writings as mere opinions?So were one to feel free to discount Thomism as I take EA and John to mean, they would be undermining not just the opinions of one or another pope, but a whole series of them. And that, I think, casts some doubt on the idea of “Tradition”, no?

I wrote:
That one may disagree with the opinions of previous popes does not undermine "tradition" - and especially not "Sacred Tradition." Would it be wise to reject sound Catholic teaching in favor of more modernist views? Probably not! But so long as what is being disagreed with is not dogmatically defined (ex cathedra) statements from popes, then Catholics may disagree with them.

[January 22, 2012 addendum]
Constantine said...

Hi Scott,

So, if the language was right and the audience was right, then you could disregard papal bulls, right? I think that is your point. My question remains – where is that taught?

1) I never said one can "disregard papal bulls," but I will say some of THAT would depend upon the language and to whom the bull was addressed/intended.

Earlier you wrote,

“But so long as what is being disagreed with is not dogmatically defined (ex cathedra) statements from popes, then Catholics may disagree with them.”

Peace. So, the 60+% or Catholics who disregard the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae's teaching on contraception or the nearly 50% of Catholics who do not affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation are perfectly within their rights, according to your standard. Do I understand that correctly?

I respond...
You can see below where I point out even our first pope is disagreed with, so "where is that taught?" is answered in Scripture for you.  As for disregarding the Church's CURRENT declarations upon contraception - this is a precept which is binding upon ALL Christians, even non-Catholics (whether they choose to accept this binding is not relevant to the fact that it IS binding upon them!).  A faithful Catholic cannot pick and choose which current precepts they will accept or reject - and based on the FACT that most forms of contraception are abortificants, the premise of this precept is "Thou shalt not kill."  Those who participate in artificial birth control/contraception cannot be considered "faithful Catholics."


As for the alleged 50% who do not affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation, again, this teaching is quite clear and explicit for Christianity!  Those who reject the teaching cannot be considered faithful Christians/Catholics. 


Now, to the specifics you mention here, THIS discussion is not about contraception or transubstantiation, so let us not be distracted into tangential topics in THIS discussion.
[End of January 22, 2012 addendum]
A blogger who goes by the initials EA responds:

"But so long as what is being disagreed with is not dogmatically defined (ex cathedra) statements from popes, then Catholics may disagree with them."

Lumen Gentium (III,25):
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

So there's a bit of an issue here. Pope Pius X insisted in some very assertive language that Thomism is the bedrock of and essential to Catholic teaching. But Cardinal Ratzinger stated that Thomistic philosophy needed to be discarded in order to save Catholicism.

In order to give some assent to both of these statements, somehow they need to be reconciled. Good Luck.

Constantine states:

I think Scott has to show where it is taught that the Roman Catholic in the pew has the authority to disregard papal bulls - ex cathedra or not.

I respond:
The most obvious evidence to present would be where our FIRST POPE was contradicted and corrected by St. Paul!  St. Paul chided St. Peter for although being a Jew, he lived as a Gentile and was expecting the Gentiles to take on Jewish traditions, this is recorded in Galations 2:14-21.  If even our first pope can be disagreed with - then why would you question our position of being able to disagree with later popes?  Now I understand non-Catholics do not accept that St. Peter was a pope at all - but the objective reader must understand as well that it is the Catholic position that he was indeed pope and thus this confrontation of St. Paul was against our first pope!  From the very beginning of what we recognize as the papacy we have faithful Catholics confronting them!


As for then Fr. Ratzinger disagreeing with Pope Pius X (a pope nearly 100 years prior) said about teaching - which is where this discussion stemmed from, allow me to retrace a bit.  James Swan found a couple of blog entries from "Catholic Champion" which intrigued him.  One was "A Warning to Those Who Oppose St. Thomas and Scholasticism" and the other, in Swan's words "a real gem" was: "Contradictions, You Decide..."  My guess would be that Swan is impressed with the perceived contradictions put forward by Matthew Bellisario (aka "Catholic Champion"). 

First off, I'd like to say that the encyclicals from Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X are essentially stating that the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas should be used by Catholic schools and universities.  While they use some pretty strong language to "exhort" such to use St. Aquinas' works, it is not "demanded."  In fact, Pope St. Pius X says in Doctoris Angelici: "We renew and confirm them and order them to be strictly observed by all concerned."  This sounds very forceful, and the document is even a "moto proprio" - BUT - it is directly addressed to "Italy and the adjacent islands," therefore is specifically NOT binding upon the whole Church! 


The next thing I'd say is that the quote from then Fr. Ratzinger is an obscure quote from an obscure source making it very difficult to check on the context.  Therefore, without being able to see the context, I reject this quote from Fr. Ratzinger.


Now, the above being said, it is clear that Catholics CAN disagree with papal statements - and I reiterate that we Catholics see St. Peter as our first pope - and Scripture provides evidence that faithful Catholics can contradict and confront even the sitting pope.


I'm not sure that those over on Beggars All will be satisfied with these answers - but clearly I have presented the case where we CAN contradict a pope - within reason.  Below I provide opinions of other Catholics and I will respectfully consider further challenges by those who have initially challenged me.


Faithfully yours,


Scott Windsor<<<
CathApol


Roman Catholic theologian, Ronald L. Conte Jr.
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/to-what-extent-may-a-faithful-catholic-disagree-with-the-pope/


Marcus Grodi offers his opinion:
http://chnetwork.org/2011/09/defragging-our-minds-by-marcus-grodi/