COLORADO SPRINGS, Feb. 22, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Colorado bishop is supporting the local bishop in his call for the National Catholic Reporter to drop the name "Catholic."

Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview this week that the national paper is “an embarrassment to the Catholic Church.”

The newspaper is often called the "National Catholic Fishwrap" by conservative Catholics because of its stances against Church teaching.
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf / WDTPRS.com
In January, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, where NCR’s offices are located, published a column reminding the paper and the faithful that NCR has been forbidden from using the name “Catholic” since 1968.

The Code of Canon Law stipulates in canon 216 that no organization can use the name Catholic without permission of the ecclesiastical authority.

NCR is renowned for opposing Catholic teaching on women’s ordination, contraception, homosexuality, and other issues, yet still enjoys privileged access to many Church leaders and regularly features ads paid for by Catholic dioceses and parishes.

“I believe exactly what [Bishop Finn is] saying,” said Sheridan. “That is a big deal for me…I don’t understand why some of these publications use the word Catholic when in some of their editorial stances they stand absolutely opposed to Church dogma.” 

Even if the paper continues to defy the bishop, he continued, churches should “absolutely not” make it available to parishioners on their magazine racks.

In his January 25th column, Bishop Finn noted that NCR’s “positions against authentic Church teaching and leadership have not changed trajectory” since the original ruling in 1968 by Bishop Charles Helmsing.

“In light of the number of recent expressions of concern, I have a responsibility as the local bishop to instruct the Faithful about the problematic nature of this media source which bears the name ‘Catholic,’” he added.

Nevertheless, the paper has remained defiant. “NCR is proud to call itself a Catholic publication,” wrote Thomas Fox, the paper’s publisher, on January 27th. “We report and comment on church matters including official teachings. We also report and comment on those who call into question some of these official teachings.”

Fox also pointed out that NCR is a member of the Catholic Press Association, which is approved by the Catholic Church.

This morning’s post was about what the pope might do in regard to the next conclave. Apparently, we now have to ask what the Curia might do in regard to the next conclave.

According to USA TODAY: Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that Vatican rules on papal succession are open to interpretation and that “this is a question that people are discussing. It is possible that church authorities can prepare a proposal to be taken up by the cardinals on the first day after the papal vacancy” to move up the start of the conclave, he said.

I don’t see that, not at all.

There is nothing ambiguous about the two-week waiting period set out in UDG 37 and—long story made short--ambiguities in the law, notinconveniences, are what are subject to ‘interpretation’. Any other changes to the plain text of pontifical law of UDG can be made only by the pontifical Legislator. Sede vacante nihil innovetur. If Benedict leaves office without having taken action on UDG, and the date of the conclave is moved up (or back for that matter), for any reason outside of accommodating unforeseen impossibilities, it will be at odds with the normative text of UDG and would set a very dangerous example for future conclaves.

I agree that March 15 is far too long to wait to begin choosing a new pope. But the proper solution, in my view, is for the Legislator to derogate from UDG 37 by either (A) setting an earlier conclave start date or (B) expressly delegating the interregnal cardinalatial commission to fix an earlier date.

The legalities of papal conclaves are among the last things on earth that should be thrown into question.

Added:

UDG 1. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction in matters which pertain to the Supreme Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office; such matters are to be reserved completely and exclusively to the future Pope. I therefore declare null and void any act of power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office which the College of Cardinals might see fit to exercise, beyond the limits expressly permitted in this Constitution.

UDG 4. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription, by my supreme authority I declare it null and void.

I don't care who you are, that's just funny!