Can We Fire the Pope?

[LoverofChrist]

We are human and we make horrible mistakes as humans. We are human and we don’t always get our stories straight as humans. We are human and we jump to lots of conclusions as humans. We are human and we don’t pray as we should for ourselves and for others as humans. I don’t know the whole story and, sadly, I’m not sure that any of us will. I absolutely believe the scandal happened and that a lot of people were deeply wounded by it! I also believe that the Church is being persecuted and that a great deal of what happened has been distorted and that is what is hurting the Church and those that need to heal. I can never walk away from my faith because I love it and I know it to be the truth! That said, I could never turn my back on the Pope! Thank God that he didn’t walk away from us when we nailed him to the cross! Nailing him to the cross was the worst scandal in history!!!

 

[irishpatrick]

Lilym,

Remember the devil has his full share of pride - hence he keeps fighting God even though ultimately, like the rest of us, he knows God will triumph - his pride blinds him to the impossibility of prevailing against the powers of Heaven. So his blind pride tempts him to go even for targets that aren’t particularly vulnerable, as well as those that are.

**==> I agree 100% that the devil never stops trying to destroy souls. Yet, the devil has a vast knowledge and he knows when time is best to strike a person or even the Church itself. He is a master stategist and knows what battles to fight and when.

==> My point is the the Pope is very strong and he must be (IMO) doing something right, or is going to do something very soon, that is causing this viscious attack that is filled with lies and deceptions. It is a sad reality that the devil already has many people under his so-called spell and they do his bidding even though they do not realize their error.

– Jesus was born and was attacked.

– Jesus started His ministry and was attacked.

– Jesus started His Passion and was attacked.

– What is the Pope doing to receive this attack?

The devil knew the major stages of Jesus’ life, and the devil attempted to stop those stages every time. We do not read of the devil trying to stop Jesus from learning how to be a carpenter from Joseph. We do not read of Jesus being attacked when He learned the Jewish faith when He was young. We do not read of Jesus being attacked for doing chores around the house or for eating a meal or for bathing or for speaking to friends, or any number of thousands of things Jesus did on a regular basis as all people do. Nope, what we do read is amazing attacks on Jesus during critical world changing times in our Lord’s life and mission, times that the devil knew were critical, times that the devil understood were important for “his” cause to stop.

Please, think of all that.**

 

[Galnextdoor]

No, I believe the Church always has to deal with spiritual attacks. I am simply wondering what the Pope is doing now that is contributing to this terrible attack.

Here is my theory… for what it’s worth. Beginning in June of last year, Pope Benedict began speaking out against National Socialism. His encyclical Spe Salvi

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706839.htm
speaks out against Marxism and it’s followers. There are many Socialist/Progressives in the world who want to destroy anyone who speaks out against socialism.

 

[irishpatrick]

Here is my theory… for what it’s worth. Beginning in June of last year, Pope Benedict began speaking out against National Socialism. His encyclical Spe Salvi

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706839.htm
speaks out against Marxism and it’s followers. There are many Socialist/Progressives in the world who want to destroy anyone who speaks out against socialism.

That is a very good theory.

Along with that, the L.A. archdiocese is getting a Bishop that was formed by Opus Dei. L.A. has long been a huge bastion of the left, perhaps that is now being a threatened a bit too. I have rumors of other changes, and if they come about, they will be very good for the Church in the USA. All of those changes emanated from the Pope.

 

[Young_Thinker]

That is a very good theory.

Along with that, the L.A. archdiocese is getting a Bishop that was formed by Opus Dei. L.A. has long been a huge bastion of the left, perhaps that is now being a threatened a bit too. I have rumors of other changes, and if they come about, they will be very good for the Church in the USA. All of those changes emanated from the Pope.

Interesting!

 

[JReducation]

I do not think that the Pope should “be fired”. However, I think that the Church would benefit with more decentralization-

You cannot decentralize the Church. Christ founded it as a monarchy with a cental head and bishops attached to that head. However, we do have a certain degree of autonomy too. There are 22 Churches that make of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Each has its own government, customs, rites, laws and culture. It’s not as centralized as people thinnk. The problem is that most people think if Catholic Church as Roman Catholic. But Roman Catholic is one of 22 Churches all united under one pope as Christ united all the Apostles under Peter. That cannot be changed.

allowing priests and nuns more freedom.

We don’t want more freedom. If you observe the reforms that are taking place among religious sisters and religious brothers, every reform community has stricter standards of obedience, a very centralized form of government, high accountability for everything. very little freedom of choice. We want to go back to the roots of religiuos life. That’s why the sisters split into two conferences. There is a whole new generation of religious men and religious women that believe that freedome has destroyed religious life. We want the old structures. Franciscans and Dominicans want the structure of the 1200s. Benedictines want the structure of the 400s. And so forth.

I believe that the administrative decisions of the leaders of the Church should be questioned more often and made more transparent.

We who are religious brothers and sisters and those who are diocesan priests do not wan to question. We want to obey as has been our tradition for 2000 years. What we want to see is the bishops and the Vatican work more closely together. We want to see bishops obeying the Vatican as they promised to do.

The doctrine of infallibility (yes I know that it is a limited doctrine which has only been used a few times) is also wrong-headed. Considering the history of corruption in the Papacy (I am thinking particularly of the Medicis) and the imperfection of all men, I do not think any individual should be considered as infallible.

The fact that infallibility is a doctrine that was revealed by Christ himself means that your last statement cannot stand. Yes an individual must be consdered infallible, because Christ said so. Christ does not make mistakes, nor does he reveal dogmas for the short-term. They are forever. His promises to Peter was not for a few years. They were to be in place until his return. Therefore, we can’t even think about the possibility of not having infallibility. To think that ways is to contradict Christ’s personal belief. He believed that it is possible, because he would make it possible. History has proven it. No pope has ever taught error. They have made many errors, but not taught it. There is a difference between the messenger and the message. Every doctrine that every pope has ever taught has been consistent with what God has revealed through history from the beginning of time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rpp]

The Huffington Post is technically not a real news source. I believe it calls itself a liberal, progressive commentary outlet. Basically it’s just an anti-conservative blog.

Correct. As a consequence of that, they cannot be considered a reliable source. They are great promoters of allowing marriage between sexual deviants and promote the murder of unborn children, both of which the Catholic Church is staunchly and steadfastly against. Therefore, the Church is the enemy of the editors of this site. They can hardly be expected to be fair.

 

[Art321]

Correct. As a consequence of that, they cannot be considered a reliable source. They are great promoters of allowing marriage between sexual deviants and promote the murder of unborn children, both of which the Catholic Church is staunchly and steadfastly against. Therefore, the Church is the enemy of the editors of this site. They can hardly be expected to be fair.

Again, I apologize! I truly am sorry! I didn’t know this about them.

 

[Soutane]

• received this from a friend in an email today so I can’t provide attribution but I think everyone should read this anyway:

Subject: Proud to be Catholic!!

Excerpts of an article written by Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland Jewish businessman - NOT Catholic.

Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States , namely the Catholic Church?
Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to that Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. The graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%.
The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000 students.
The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people ˆ not just Catholics - in the United States today
But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.
Let me give you some figures that Catholics should know and remember. For example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church , 41.8% of clergy women reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem.
A study of American priests showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.
The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds. The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now.
Walk with your shoulders high and you head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States .
Then remember what Jeremiah said: ‘Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls’. Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions. Be proud that you’re a Catholic.*

 

[rpp]

Again, I apologize! I truly am sorry! I didn’t know this about them.

Not a problem. It is important to know what those who hate the Church say. Sadly, there are people who do consider this and similar sites reliable.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is my theory… for what it’s worth. Beginning in June of last year, Pope Benedict began speaking out against National Socialism. His encyclical Spe Salvi

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0706839.htm
speaks out against Marxism and it’s followers. There are many Socialist/Progressives in the world who want to destroy anyone who speaks out against socialism.

I agree

 

[csuliman]

• Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. *

This is what is truly tragic about this situation. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests and bishops are pious and just servants of God. All the priests in my life fit this description. The most heroic and brave man I have met was a priest from my village in Iraq, Father Ragheed Ganni, who decided to remain in a dangerous part of Iraq to help his flock and was assassinated for it.

What makes me really mad is that the actions of a few at the top and at positions of power in the local diocese decided to pursue a path of lies and cover-up and ended up tarnishing the reputation of the good priests, in the process making their job much harder.

PS. this qoute from the above news article always gives me strenght:

He pondered the path his country had taken: “In a sectarian and confessional Iraq, will there be any space for Christians? We have no support, no group who fights for our cause; we are abandoned in the midst of this disaster. Iraq has already been divided; it will never be the same. What is the future of our Church?”.

 

[anode]

I don’t think that the pope should be fired, but one might raise the legitimate question of whether or not a pope in chronic ill-health shouldn’t be encouraged to step down.

The specter of abuse in the RCC became more widespread during the pontificate of JPII, who was ill for a number of years before his death in 2005. Notably in the notorious Maciel/Legion of Christ case, Maciel was protected by members of the college of Cardinals and curia for years, by giving lavish gifts and envelopes stuffed with money to influential cardinals, including now-Cardinal Dziwicz, a close friend of JPII. Ratzinger, who knew of Maciels abuse from 1997, if not before, did not move against Maciel until 2006, after he became pope. Althought JPII might not have wanted to demote Maciel, after he had supported him and the Legion for so long, he might have been persuaded to do so before 2006, if he had been well.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I don’t think that the pope should be fired, but one might raise the legitimate question of whether or not a pope in chronic ill-health shouldn’t be encouraged to step down.

No, a Pope, should never abdicate unless in a state of heresy or a similarily extreme situation; if every sick Pontiff resigned, we would a situation like that in Holland(where it is a “tradition” not to serve out your reign). There would be no more tapping on the forehead and smashing of fisherman’s rings, just more confusion.

 

[Corki]

I don’t think that the pope should be fired, but one might raise the legitimate question of whether or not a pope in chronic ill-health shouldn’t be encouraged to step down.

Encourage being the operative word. If a Pope were to step down, it must be entirely voluntary, not coerced or “encouraged” by anyone.

 

[JReducation]

There are a few theological and pastoral points in these cases that the faithful and non-Catholics must understand. I’ll try to bullet them.

1. 
   *]People have been saying that Cardinal Ratzinger is responsible for the assignment of the German priest in the Archdiocese of Munich, even though the assignment was made by the then Vicar General. People are saying that the local bishop is ultimately responsible. That’s not totally accurate. In large Metropolitan Sees, the bishop is responsible for assigning pastors. Associates are always assigned by either a Director of Personnel or the Vicar General who serves as the Director of Personnel. Priests may also request an assignment through the personnel office or the person who handles assignments.
   
   *]The local bishop is not the person who handles assignments. Unless the person doing the assigning feels that he should consult something with the bishop, he proceeds independent of the bishop. It is only in small dioceses where bishops actually take part in the assigning priests and deacons. I was assigned to my current diocese and the bishop did not meet me for well over a year and I came in from outside of the dioceses. Since I’m a religious, the Major Superior did the assigning. There are two ways of being assigned, if you’re a religious it’s done by your superior or if you’re a diocesan priest it’s done by the chancery. The bishop meets with department heads once a month to get reports. The reports are usually about problems that he needs to address. That takes us to the next bullet
   
   *]The German priest in question did not cause any problems while Cardinal Ratzinger was the Archbishop. The problems repeated themselves after the Cardinal had been reassigned to the Vatican. By that time it becomes a problem for the local bishop to deal with.
   
   *]A theological point about the priesthood, we must be very careful how we speak, lest we give the wrong message to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters who may not understand the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A priest who abuses a child or commits any kind of a crime, is obviously a criminal. However, he continues to participate in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ until the day that he dies. To laicize a priest, which was once called to defrock, does not take away his priesthood. The Church does not have the power or authority to do that. To laicize means that he is dismissed from the clerical state. If exercises any of his priestly powers he is automatically excommunicated, except hearing confessions in situations of life and death. He can always do that under those circumstances. But the ontological change that was imprinted on his soul at the moment of ordination to the diaconate and later to the priesthood and to the episcopacy, if he is a bishop, those will remain with him forever. Every sacrament that he celebrates, except marriage and confession (except in life threatening situations) every other sacrament is illicit, but valid. But he is excommunicated for violating this canonical sanction against him. He may not claim any of the privileges or rights of the priesthood. But he retains the powers. In a certain sense, he is not a common criminal, because most criminals do not participate in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. We have to be careful that we condemn the crime, but always protect the Sacrament of Holy Orders when speaking about these men.
   
   *]Finally, some people have asked about receiving the Eucharist or other sacraments from these priests, prior to their being exposed. The answer is simple. The sins of the deacon, priest or bishop are not enough to overpower the grace of God. Even if the priest has made a pact with the devil himself, God forbid. The sacrament is valid and licit and has all the merits that it would have if it had been celebrated by one of the Apostles themselves. The priest remains a successor of the Apostles, because he is an extension of his bishop who is an Apostle. All priests, sinful or saints are extensions of the priesthood of the bishop who shares in the fullness of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
   
   The sin is grave and punishable by civil and ecclesial law. But the priesthood is not lost, nor are the graces that come through that priest. No sin can overpower Jesus Christ and his saving action.
   
   I hope this clears up some confusion.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Encourage being the operative word. If a Pope were to step down, it must be entirely voluntary, not coerced or “encouraged” by anyone.

In all this talk about encouraging the pope to step down, demanding that he resign, expecting that leave and go back to Bavaria or what have you, has everyone forgotten two important points in Catholic dogma?

First, the pope has no one to resign to. He is the ultimate earthly authority of the Church. The law says that if the pope abdicates, he must write a letter of addication, which is filed for historical purposes. However, no one in the Church, not even the bishops in council, absolutely no one has the authority to receive the resignation. I cannot be signed-off by anyong. It is filed away as is. De factor, it is not a real resignation. He is simply vacating the Chair of Peter.

Second, more important is the dogma that the pope, regardless of his guilt in any crime, sin, scandal or what have you, has three titles to which he has the Apsotolic right granted to him by Jesus himself that the faithful and the unfaithful cannot disregard. Even if we do disregard it, it makes no difference, because truth does not cease to exist, because there are no believers. Those three titles are:

Vicar of Jesus Christ
Supreme Ponntiff of the Universal Church
Bishop of Rome.

He also has civil titles, that are not Apostolic. But those are not part of doctrine. The top three are. The faithful are obliged, under pain of grave sin to recognize him and venerate him under those three titles, regardless of his siins. The only way that he can lose those titles given to him by Christ himself is through heresy or apostasy. Heresy and apostasy have to meet certain criteria. Just because a pope says something dumb, does not make it heresy, even if it sound like heresy. It must be judged in a tribunal, then the findings have to be send to the college of Cardinals, who then convene a council of bishops. If all three of these levels agree that the pope is a heretic, then he forfeits the three divine titles given to him by Christ.

Regardless what is said or what we believe that the pope may have done or not done, there is a line that we better not cross or we will be in deeper moral trouble than he. To disregard his position as Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff and Bishop of Rome would be excommunicable. Whereas, whatever he knew or not know, is not excommunicable.

We’re walking a very fine line here in some of our statements that can get us excommunicated without the Church having to say anything. Whatever we say, we must always, at least in our hearts and minds, conclude with an act of faith that he is still the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and the Bishop of Rome and that we revere and obey him when he speaks under one of those titles.

We must never allow passion to endanger our immortal soul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[csuliman]

Regardless what is said or what we believe that the pope may have done or not done, there is a line that we better not cross or we will be in deeper moral trouble than he. To disregard his position as Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff and Bishop of Rome would be excommunicable. Whereas, whatever he knew or not know, is not excommunicable.

We’re walking a very fine line here in some of our statements that can get us excommunicated without the Church having to say anything. Whatever we say, we must always, at least in our hearts and minds, conclude with an act of faith that he is still the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and the Bishop of Rome and that we revere and obey him when he speaks under one of those titles.

Br. JR, OSF

Having lived through the dictatorship of Saddam and the total mind control of his regime, I am hesitant to grant any man the immutable titles that you mention. What if the doctrines on which these titles are based are themselves incorrect? Can I remain a Catholic and question these doctrines?