Bishops not employees of the Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter lakotak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting! And different from what I had learned elsewhere. I will look into it. Thanks.
 
Always a pleasure to help my Catholic friends understand the nuances of Catholic administration. Now, if you would return the favor and explain the office of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to me, I would be very grateful. Perhaps it is a mystery not worth solving!
manualman said:
Interesting! And different from what I had learned elsewhere. I will look into it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Corki said:
If that was their goal, they failed miserably. O.J. never admited to the murders and it turned out to be all about the money.

There may indeed be victims of clergy abuse who really just want a sincere apology. But for every one of them, there are a half dozen lawyers wanting to bleed the Church for every dime. They aren’t interested in justice or healing. They don’t care how many other innocent children get hurt in the process. It’s all about the money.:mad:
Click to expand...
IMHO that is wrong for you to say that. Can you read into the mind of those thousands of rape victims and say they didn’t care about justice or healing and it was just the money? I don’t think so.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
As to the notion that any bishop has the power to ordain another bishop, that is technically true from a sacerdotal point of view. ** However, any bishop who does consecrate a bishop without the express sanction of the Vatican incurs an automatic excommunication by virtue of the act of ordination.** Therefore, the making of bishops is strictly controlled by the relevant Vatican congregation.

Every bishop understands that the Vatican put him in place and the Vatican can move him, demote him, promote him, etc. For this reason, you see very little episcopal indiscipline. Apart from the above cited example, the only recent example I know of is the famous case of Emmanuel Milingo of Zambia, who married a bride chosen for him by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, and apparently has also ordained a number of bishops.
Click to expand...
I had forgotten about that. The fact that every Bishop needs a Papal Mandate or risk losing their office is such clear evidence that Bishops are under the authority of the Pope.
 
OK, you asked! I’ll hazard a theory that Anglicanism in general and TEC specifically developed the ‘presiding bishop’ role as part of an increasingly violent oscillation between extremes, namely the extremes of anarchy and power/control.
  1. Henry VII severs the link with Rome, but believes he can manage to keep things as a sort of ‘popeless catholicism.’
  2. #1 doesn’t work out and the Church of England under Cromwell’s influence takes a decidedly protestant bent. #1 and #2 are related reactions against authority. (tyranny is abhorred, liberty cherished)
  3. After a period of theologically and practically protestant experimentation, the CoE returns to its roots in sacramental/liturgical christianity (still minus that pesky pope, of course and, says catholicism, minus the apostolic succession that got lost along the way). Corresponding to this return is a hostility to continental protestant theology and models of Church function. (Anarchy is abhorred, Order is cherished. The English way after all - stiff upper lip there.)
  4. The Church of England in the Colonies suddenly faces a rather tricky problem of an English hierarchy in a new country hostile to England. Back to protestantism and highly distributed authority. (Tyranny is abhorred, liberty cherished)
  5. Over time, that ‘distributed authority’ again began to look suspiciously like anarchy again and the bishops got together and formed TEC with its structures and forms to try to establish a process for addressing issues in a unified and orderly manner. Part of that structure established was a bishop given certain front-man duties. But much like the host nation that bishop must not be thought of as a pope just like that nation’s president must not be thought of like a monarch! Nevertheless, over time the office as is always the case in long lived human organizations amassed more duties, responsibilities and power to itself. (Anarchy is abhorred, Order is cherished)
  6. It looks to me like TEC is in the throes of another tidal switch. Leadership appears to be trying to hold on to power by embracing the values of the culture at large in an attempt to keep the structure together, but IMO that is a losing game. The Anglican movement is fractured into so many factions and each one is showing ever less patience with the others. I think the whole Anglican organization is going to blow up into four separate groups soon: 1. Evangelicals, 2. Liberal Protestants, 3. Anglo catholics (not in union with catholicism), 4. Converts to catholicism (individually and in parishes). I’d like to say I have that in reverse order, but I fear I have it right.
But then, I probably know less about TEC than you know about the CC. Nevertheless, I can’t resist such an invitation!
 
As I understand it, the Vatican is attempting to get claims against it dismissed before discovery, particularly depositions and document production, in cases that have been brought against it in the US. The essence of the defense is that the Courts should not mix religious or canon law with the civil law. Under canon law, the Pope is the head of the Church; under civil law, the defense claims, he is not. It is a valid argument. The plaintiff attorneys have expert witnesses who will testify to facts about the church administration to support the plaintiffs’ claims. I’m sure the Church will have its own experts. There are a lot of technical details here; we’ll have to see how the Court rules. Fifty years ago the church would have won easily; now I’m not so sure. The abuse scandal has done great damage to the image of the Church and to its finances.

There is also a sort of sovereign immunity defense which may stand up that precludes suits against foreign nations in American courts except in certain circumstances. That is also quite technical. I recall that ten or so years ago some plaintiffs got a multimillion dollar verdict against Cuba for the death of some airmen.

If the church loses on this defense, the plaintiff attorneys will have a field day with discovery. They have already secured a lot of money and will be able to finance litigation for a long, long time.
 
To EmperorNapoleon:

You have to understand the identity and design of the Church before you can comment with credibility. You’re trying to apply a model that doesn’t apply.
 
manualman said:
Baloney. A wad of cash is not closure. That’s a sick American fantasy.
Click to expand...
I’m going to be inappropriate here, but I can’t help myself.

You say you haven’t been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, old billy was right
Let’s kill all the lawyers, kill ’em tonight
You don’t want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn’t owe you a thing
  • Get Over It, The Eagles
 
OriginalJS said:
As I understand it, the Vatican is attempting to get claims against it dismissed before discovery, particularly depositions and document production, in cases that have been brought against it in the US. The essence of the defense is that the Courts should not mix religious or canon law with the civil law. Under canon law, the Pope is the head of the Church; under civil law, the defense claims, he is not. It is a valid argument. The plaintiff attorneys have expert witnesses who will testify to facts about the church administration to support the plaintiffs’ claims. I’m sure the Church will have its own experts. There are a lot of technical details here; we’ll have to see how the Court rules. Fifty years ago the church would have won easily; now I’m not so sure. The abuse scandal has done great damage to the image of the Church and to its finances.

There is also a sort of sovereign immunity defense which may stand up that precludes suits against foreign nations in American courts except in certain circumstances. That is also quite technical. I recall that ten or so years ago some plaintiffs got a multimillion dollar verdict against Cuba for the death of some airmen.

If the church loses on this defense, the plaintiff attorneys will have a field day with discovery. They have already secured a lot of money and will be able to finance litigation for a long, long time.
Click to expand...
The personality of the Catholic Church has not changed under Canon Law and civil law. It is as it was fifty years ago and before then. It is the secular attitude towards Her that has changed and civil courts will find immense difficulty in establishing a legal personality akin to that of corporations/organisations with an employer-employee relationship. The Catholic Church’s personality where a Pope as CEO (so to speak) leads and not rule
is uniquely spiritual not secular and the bishops are bound by obedience, not by duty of law, whether that be canon or civil law.

While these scrupulous lawyers are at it, they might as well issue legal proceedings against God for all natural catastrophes which brought about financial ruin to many. 😉
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The Church brought this upon itself and the victims deserve justice. Maybe it wont heal them but it will provide closure.
Click to expand...
Closure should not be bought with money. This does nothing to level the anguish of those abused. The guilty priests should be defrocked and placed in the county jail for life. Now that is closure.
 
Santi2 said:
The personality of the Catholic Church has not changed under Canon Law and civil law. It is as it was fifty years ago and before then. It is the secular attitude towards Her that has changed and civil courts will find immense difficulty in establishing a legal personality akin to that of corporations/organisations with an employer-employee relationship. The Catholic Church’s personality where a Pope as CEO (so to speak) leads and not rule
is uniquely spiritual not secular and the bishops are bound by obedience, not by duty of law, whether that be canon or civil law.

While these scrupulous lawyers are at it, they might as well issue legal proceedings against God for all natural catastrophes which brought about financial ruin to many. 😉
Click to expand...
I agree that the secular attitude has changed, but so has the legal attitude. Churches and other charitable institutions used to be exempt from lawsuits but that changed drastically so that churches are sued all the time. I also agree that the civil courts will find difficulty in establishing a master-servant or employer-employee relationship but the fact is, that the plaintiff attorneys are going to have the opportunity to try whereas 50 years ago they would not. In short, imposition of vicarious liability is possible now where it wasn’t before.
 
OriginalJS said:
I agree that the secular attitude has changed, but so has the legal attitude. Churches and other charitable institutions used to be exempt from lawsuits but that changed drastically so that churches are sued all the time. I also agree that the civil courts will find difficulty in establishing a master-servant or employer-employee relationship but the fact is, that the plaintiff attorneys are going to have the opportunity to try whereas 50 years ago they would not. In short, imposition of vicarious liability is possible now where it wasn’t before.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying. I also understand that these legal counsels see a target defendant on the back of genuine cases = $$$. Have you come across the ruling on vicarious liability in ecclesiastical “corporations”? The Canadian case: John Doe v Bennett makes for an interesting read. While it may not be binding in the States obiter dicta could still bear persuasive authority where there is no legal precedent against the Holy Father and the Vatican.
… plaintiffs must show that the rationale behind the imposition of vicarious liability will be met in two ways:
1 First, the relationship between the “tort feasor” and the person against whom liability is sought must be sufficiently close; and
2 Secondly, the wrongful act must be sufficiently connected to the conduct authorized by the employer.
Click to expand...
csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc17/2004scc17.html
canadianunderwriter.ca/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000156187
 
elts1956 said:
Closure should not be bought with money. This does nothing to level the anguish of those abused. The guilty priests should be defrocked and placed in the county jail for life. Now that is closure.
Click to expand...
And, where money can be spent and the errant priest can rot in jail, the grace to forgive would outlast both. There are many victims of sex abuse who have found closure with forgiveness.
 
This comment would be laughed out of the Vatican. If you are comparing the Church’s failure to come to grips with errant priests with a natural disaster, you are equating the sins of the church with acts of God. Not a wise choice, methinks.
Santi2 said:
While these scrupulous lawyers are at it, they might as well issue legal proceedings against God for all natural catastrophes which brought about financial ruin to many. 😉
Click to expand...
 
Corki said:
The Vatican has authority and control over all Catholics in terms of faith, morals and canon law. This includes the Bishops. That is its function. That’s far from “toothless”./QUOTE

Are you trying to tell us that all Catholics listen to the Pope? What a hoot!!!
Click to expand...
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
This comment would be laughed out of the Vatican. If you are comparing the Church’s failure to come to grips with errant priests with a natural disaster, you are equating the sins of the church with acts of God. Not a wise choice, methinks.
Click to expand...
Or, it could be the case that British legal humour does not translate well. 🤷
 
Corki said:
The education analogy is good. EN’s premise would be like saying that all elementary school principals are employees of the US Department of Education. 😃
Click to expand...
This isn’t so. The only way one can become a Roman Catholic bishop is to be ordained one at the behest of Rome. Rome chooses every bishop rightfully chosen in the Church. If you want to teach second graders to read in your hometown, you don’t have to meet with any at the Dept of Education in Washington, or even in your state capital. This analogy is ill chosen.

HOWEVER, if you want to claim that school administrators who “pass the trash” (quietly fire a ‘touchy’ teacher who winds up teaching elsewhere with no warning from the previous school) should be sued and have to pay damages, I’m all for that too!
 
Santi2 said:
There are many victims of sex abuse who have found closure with forgiveness.
Click to expand...
There is a catch here. If the Our Father, we ask God to forgive us as we forgive others. We know before saying this prayer that when we sin against God, we should apologize to Him. You cannot forgive someone who refuses to apologize to you. (They don’t want forgiveness and steadfastly deny that there is anything to be forgiven for.) You may think you ‘let it go’ (or that someone else should ‘let it go’) but that is not forgiveness, and whatever it is, it should not be confused with forgiveness.

Priests who have molested minors but refused to admit they have done anything wrong, and bishops who have shuffled them around while maintaining that they have done nothing wrong, CANNOT be forgiven because they have not asked for it. God’s forgiveness is ever-ready, but he doesn’t force it on people. Those who deny a need for it do not ask for it, and there is no reason to think they get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top