The blinders of Bishop Bruskewitz
Bishop Fabien Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska–who has steadfastly refused to cooperate with the National Review Board’s annual audits since they began–has a few choice words for the chairwoman of the NRB. As reported in Catholic World News, he released the following statement in response to the latest round of audits:
Some woman named Patricia O’Donnell Ewers, who is the Chair of something called “A National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People”, has said that her Board “calls for strong fraternal correction of the Diocese of Lincoln.” The Diocese of Lincoln has nothing to be corrected for, since the Diocese of Lincoln is and has always been in full compliance with all laws of the Catholic Church and with all civil laws. Furthermore, Ewers and her Board have no authority in the Catholic Church and the Diocese of Lincoln does not recognize them as having any significance.
It is well known that some of the members of Ewers’ Board are ardent advocates of partial birth abortion, other abortions, human cloning, and other moral errors. It is understandable then how such persons could dislike the Diocese of Lincoln, which upholds the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.
The words attributed to Ewers seem to confirm the suspicion that the members of her Board are unfamiliar with Catholic teachings, Catholic ecclesiology, and even the basic rudiments of the Catholic Catechism. Rather than concerning themselves with the Diocese of Lincoln about which they appear completely ignorant, Ewers and her colleagues would occupy themselves in a better way by learning something about the Catholic religion and the traditions and doctrines and laws of the Catholic Church.
The Diocese of Lincoln does not see any reason for the existence of Ewers and her organization.
I like how he puts the Review Board in scare quotes, and makes it sound either like science fiction (what is this so-called Review Board you speak of? ) or some vigilante group organized by Catholic insurgents–rather than a body created by the U.S. bishops in response to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse they hadn’t been handling very well on their own. That, quite apart from the bishop’s laundry list of doctrinal distractions, is precisely why the Catholic Church needs the NRB. Perhaps Lincoln doesn’t get the Chicago newspapers.
I don’t know what is worse Bruskewitz’s press release or the comments posted in resposne to the report of it on the CWN site. How can people believe that any single diocese does not need oversight in the wake of the abuse scandal? Do they really believe that dioceses have paid out almost 1.5 billion dollars because of greedy lawyers alone? Who will censure bishops for their failure to protect children if they cannot call each other to accountability? Bernard Law’s removal from Boston in order to be rewarded in Rome is hardly an example to set for offending bishops.
Can nothing be done about this Fabien Bruskewitz person? I noticed that the percentage of dioceses in full compliance with the Charter is lower this year than last. We’re slipping on this, and it’s got to stop. I’ve got grandchildren to think about.
Grant, I appreciate you sharing Bruskewitz’s comments on the NRB’s authority, particularly because we can’t access the full article since it is a pay-for-view item. (And although I welcome the site, I’m not prepared to pay them one dime, not even a Canadian one:-) )
I have to agree with iProf about the comments from people who post at the CWN site (viewed through the news links on page 2).
What is most disturbing about Bruskewitz is his shere arrogance and concomitant belittling of the whole process. I am sure if any of his fellow priests, let alone parishoners treated him or one of his may sub-organizations with the same distain he would bring down the wrath of God upon them.
Rule through fear is unchristian so thanks for sharing just how low some bishops have sunk in quality and compassion.
Bruskewitz is, and has been for a long time, an embarrassment! How did he EVER get made a bishop in this church? One doesn’t have to fully support everything Call to Action does in order to have a better appreciation for what they have gone through with him, i.e., “excommunication”.
The people of his diocese deserve what they have gotten unless the rise up and resist him with the best way possible, i.e., their wallets and donations.
It’s no way to spend a Saturday morning. First, I read bishop Bruskewitz’s poisonous press release and then (courtesy of Mark Goodacre’s NT Gateway Weblog), at Sean Winter’s blog, Sean the Baptist:
Continuing –
“The command to go and disciple panta ta ethne should not be detached from the claim to universal authority …that the risen Jesus makes. But such authority is the fulfillment of that which is present in the earthly ministry and future parosia of the Son of Man. This command serves to … remind [Jesus' followers] that the mission must be characterized by the suffering servanthood of the risen Lord they now worship.”
I guess he forgot.
Perhaps this is an April Fool’s Joke, or is the joke on the good people of Lincoln?
I thought this was an April Fool’s thing too? I’m praying it is but with Bishop Bruskewitz I suppose anything is possible.
I should hesitate to characterize His Eminence, Bishop Briskewitz’s comments. Was he appointed by the late Bishop of Rome? Is he a friend of the former Archbishop of Boston? Even then.
Thank God that the appointment of bishops is not an aspect of Papal Infallibility. If it was then I would KNOW (rather than strongly suspect) that doctrine to be fallacious.
I also wonder whether this story is an April Fool’s Joke, since I cannot trace it back beyond CWN. There is some serious reporting on the Catholic World News site, but the tone in other articles veers to insults and jabber. On the other hand, Catholic News Service is worthy of trust. The name of the CWN site misleads the Google News search engine and perhaps many readers.
It’s no April Fool’s joke. Bruskewitz clarifies his statement in the following interview in The Wanderer:
http://thewandererpress.com/b4-13-2006.htm
Money quote:
Q. What prompted your response to the published letter from Mrs. Ewers to Bishop Skylstad?
A. I was speechless with indignation, and I refuse to be bossed around by these people. It was explicit in a published report that was put on the Internet, an attack on the Diocese of Lincoln.
I live in the Diocese of Lincoln, and I am among many that thank God every day for Bishop Bruskewitz.
Why is it that our cesspool of conservatism (as some would call it) has as many, if not not more seminarians than the diocese of Los Angeles?
I think it’s because Bishop Bruskewitz simply won’t put up with heterodoxy and heresy. This is a bishop faithful to the teachings of the Church, the Holy Father, and the Magisterium.
Regarding the review board, why did the Bishops make themselves exempt from it’s scope? Before its founding, Bishop Bruskewitz was the ONLY bishop who said the board should also be able to recommend the removal of Bishops who are found to have harbored predatory homosexual priests. The rest of the USCCB thought otherwise apparently, and exempted themselves. He’s also one ot the only bishops to actual call this problem what it is: a problem of homosexual priests preying on young men, not pedophile priests preying on young children. If the problem, as many of you see it, is that the Bishops have been protecting these priests up to this point, then the BISHOPS are part of the problem. Why exempt them from the solution, then bash the only one who truly wanted them to be a part of it?
Bishop Bruskewitz nailed it: this board is powerless to act against the very people who were covering up the problem the board has been enacted to fix. So why support a toothless tiger?
The Lincoln diocese is full of faithful, orthodox, priests. We haven’t been afflicted with homosexual predators like other diocese. It’s no accident. To say he rules with fear tells me you have no idea of his true nature, or the meaning of Christian Charity.
I missed the bishop’s desire to see the NRB have the mandate to recommend the removal of bishops. I find it hard to believe that a man who’s so offended that the NRB exitsts at all would have wanted them to have such a mandate. Actually, your story about the bishops exempting themselves smells fishy. You are, of course, completely without basis for claiming, as does your bishop, that homosexuality is the cause of the scandal. The 80 percent figure I’m sure you have in mind proves nothing. It’s statistical hocus pocus.
Grant,
Bruskewitz had moved that the charter read that “clerics” who were accused of abusing children should be removed from the ministry. His fellow bishops overruled him, and the language was changed to “priests and deacons.”
http://thewandererpress.com/a4-13-2006.htm
In addition, the story mentions that Bishop Bruskewitz proposed a study of the scandal, and the corresponding relation to the failure of the Bishops to teach the Church’s traditional teachings on morality and clerical homosexuality . This too was shot down.
And please, don’t discredit the message because of the messenger. I’m sure you despise “The Wanderer,” but stick to refuting statements, rather than dismissing any of this because of the publication in which its presented.
Likewise, do you offer any proof that these damnable scandals have nothing to do with homosexuality among the clergy? You simply say I’m completely without basis for asserting this, yet offer nothing other than “hocus pocus.”
I didn’t say that homosexuality has nothing to do with the scandal. I said we simply don’t know whether it was the cause. The.
It’s clear now that you’re talking about different entities: the National Review Board and the Charter. The bishop makes clear that he would object to any recommendations from the NRB on the grounds that they haven’t the authority to effect change in his diocese. I’d like to know how the bishop believed a thorough study of the scandal could take place without the cooperation of his diocese.
I don’t despise the Wanderer, but it’s difficult to trust their coverage when the article you cite contains: “The bishops quickly realized that such a study might indicate that they had failed the faithful in their primary role as spiritual leaders and teachers.” The piece contains several similar editorializing statements free of argument.