See: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-154.shtml

Absolutely.

As with any moral issue, bishops can explain, clarify, and expound on those principles.

You forgot that they also seem to be able to ignore, revoke, and subvert those principles.

Might I suggest you reconsider how you live your life then? Because, in my experience, nothing could be farther removed from reality. In fact, in the last month, I have been asked 3 times who I will vote for, followed by why. All three were polite brief conversations, all with non-catholics, and 2 with people very much opposed to the Faith. I have also been involved in a couple of discussions among fellow members of the CL fraternity regarding our flier on politics for this election (which conversation and flier are notremotely “american style”.) Those discussions were intentional opportunities to share judgements on the position after some consideration.

Perhaps you’ve found evidence here that your approach to reality is horrendously flawed? Consider it, please, for your own happiness.

That said, I am not convinced that Martino’s comments were, in fact, contrary to FC and I am more certain that the statements by the Dallas bishops, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Aquila, and the Bishops of Kansas City area – to name just some – are not contrary to FC.

FC was not meant to be the final say on matters of voting. It merely sets out principles. As with any moral issue, bishops can explain, clarify, and expound on those principles.

The situation is comparable to the application of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Facilities. The ERDs set forth basic guidance and principles. The bishop has the responsibility of interpreting, clarifying, and even expanding upon those principles.

I think that’s a tough and divisive question. Martino seems to have taken the power trip route rather than the episcopal communion route, which sends signals for me. Unlike the Dallas bishops, Martino is deliberately separating himself from the other bishops.

Nevertheless, the USCCB does have some authority. FC does have some authority. How is a Catholic in Scranton to respond to Bishop Martino? What is the relationship between his teaching authority and the teaching authority of the conference?

They are certainly a development, but they do have a role, as described in the document Christopher linked to.

Why is any emphasis placed on the teaching of episcopal conferences that are defined by the borders of nation-states?

Conferences generally, but need not, correspond to the borders of nation-states. While the borders of nation-states, in my view, are totally arbitrary, those borders impact people’s lives living within them and they impose a certain similarity of circumstances upon the citizens of those states. While I reject the nation-state project, I don’t see the organization of bishops’ conferences to be problematic. They are merely making a practical organizational move. As long as the conferences don’t end up acting like national churches, a la Anglicanism, then I think it makes sense.

The USCCB document Faithful Citizenship has no binding authority on an individual bishop whatsoever. If Bishop Martino refuses to abide by this document he is entirely free to do so.

The more important issue is whether FC expresses the episcopal communion of the U.S. bishops. With only 4 bishops opposing it, I’m inclined to think that it does. A related question is what happens when 1 or 2 renegade bishops actively and publicly dismiss the teaching of the rest of the bishops.

Ecclesially speaking, I do not believe the USCCB has any “real” authority, and a Catholic in a given diocese should “submit” to his/her bishop.

The USCCB does indeed have authority. The important question is what kind of authority:

“22. In dealing with new questions and in acting so that the message of Christ enlightens and guides people’s consciences in resolving new problems arising from changes in society, the Bishops assembled in the Episcopal Conference and jointly exercizing their teaching office are well aware of the limits of their pronouncements. While being official and authentic and in communion with the Apostolic See, these pronouncements do not have the characteristics of a universal magisterium. For this reason the Bishops are to be careful to avoid interfering with the doctrinal work of the Bishops of other territories, bearing in mind the wider, even world-wide, resonance which the means of social communication give to the events of a particular region.

Taking into account that the authentic magisterium of the Bishops, namely what they teach insofar as they are invested with the authority of Christ, must always be in communion with the Head of the College and its members,(83) when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops.”

It seems obvious that the USCCB does not have the authority of the universal magisterium. But they exercise magisterial authority nonetheless, within the context of their particular region.