Cardinal Burke and Grand Master Festing defied wishes of Pope Francis by sacking Grand Chancellor

[Don_Ruggero]

The gist: Albrecht von Boeselager, a Knight of Obedience and Second Class member of the order, is not a Professed Religious (he’s married and has 4 children). His Promise of obedience is to his religious superiors in the order. It is not the same as the Vow of Obedience taken by the Knights of Justice (the First Class). So the Holy See doesn’t have legal jurisdiction in an appeal of Boeselager’s suspension.

The person in question is a member of the Order, by virtue of how they are constituted.

The Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Apostolic Life, as an example, which is only an extension of the person of the Pope and using his supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power, has jurisdiction over those who are members of Religious Orders, Religious Congregations, Societies of Apostolic Life, as well as Secular Institutes…without regard to whether the person is making a solemn vow, a simple vow or a promise. That is not relevant to their jurisdiction. They have jurisdiction over, for further example, married people who are in Third Orders Secular or public associations of the faithful that were founded with an intent in view of become an institute of consecrated life. The determiner of the Holy See’s locus of jurisdiction is the Holy See.

The nuncio heading the papal commission has articulated the matter very clearly and also quite correctly. And is a gifted expert as are the other members of the papal commission.

By the manner in which the Grand Magistry proceeded, it is they themselves who opened the door, perhaps unwittingly, to this intervention by the Holy See when they undertook an action that implicated the role of a religious superior. Any action of that sort is subject to review by the Holy Father.

I am sorry to write that it is nothing short of absurd for the Grand Magistry of The Sovereign Military Order of Malta to attempt to tell the Holy See that it does not know the areas of its jurisdiction and competence. That is beyond disappointing. The Order, or rather the Grand Magistry, is seriously running the risk of finding itself in a situation not unlike it did over sixty years ago. That is very sad, because of the negative consequences.

With each passing day, the actions of the Grand Magistry are indicating that there are indeed very serious internal problems that need to be dealt with.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

How many of their members and donors are thinking the same thing?

How many non Catholics are reading the news and laughing up their sleeve’s?

The actions taking place on the part of the Grand Magistry have provoked far greater concerns than the concern of how donors or non-Catholics are reacting to the events.

 

[robertmidwest]

The actions taking place on the part of the Grand Magistry have provoked far greater concerns than the concern of how donors or non-Catholics are reacting to the events.

You mean on a spiritual level?

 

[TMC]

Yes, but it seems to me that they are using their quasi-governmental nature to resist the authority of the Pope. That is not very Catholic.

It is not so different than they way dioceses operate. A diocese is an independent legal entity from the Vatican. That is (one reason) why the Vatican can not be held liable for things like abuse charges made against diocesan priests. A diocese has the legal authority to own and manage its own property; and the Vatican technically has no legal control over the diocese’s property. But it is hard to imagine a bishop using that legal structure to refuse to follow the Pope’s direction in a matter. The fact that the Pope has no legal control over diocesan property is not relevant from an ecclesiastical perspective. At least that is my view. If others understand the situation better, maybe they can explain whether this analogy is correct or not.

 

[robertmidwest]

They don’t collect taxes to fund themselves though do they? Correct me if I am wrong but they are fundamentally a charity organization. Their funding comes from donors?

They had an ethics situation that was resolved internally. Two years later The Lepanto Institute and Burke decided that a scorched earth policy was needed. The result, from the news reports, is a deeply divided organization. Who will suffer in the long run? The people who were served by (name removed by moderator) and the Church.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You mean on a spiritual level?

Yes.

Certain actions being taken by the Grand Magistry are inimical to consecrated life. I have seen that behavior manifest itself before and, if true, decisive action needs to be taken against it.

I have complete confidence in the Holy See.

 

[robertmidwest]

I think that dues probably more qualify at a donation. It is voluntary unlike a sales or property tax.If members are displeased there money will travel elsewhere.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think that dues probably more qualify at a donation. It is voluntary unlike a sales or property tax.If members are displeased there money will travel elsewhere.

No. Making it analogous to a freewill donation would not be correct, given the nature of the Order and the relationship of those in the Order to the Prince.

 

[robertmidwest]

I have complete confidence in the Holy See.

I do too.

Pope Francis is, well… he is the pope. Burke, The Lepanto Institute and Festing are not.

In some international legal battle they MAY win, but what will be the cost?

I was questioned earlier about my statements of ego size of a member. Here it is. A cleric may be able to put a notch on his belt that “took out a promoter of birth control” but at what expense? And there is not guarantee he will get that notch on his belt right now. What damage is being done to the church, the organization and poor who were being served. It looks to me like egos are taking priority right now.

 

[TMC]

I know its not the same - but what is the same is that the Pope lacks legal authority to tell a bishop how to handle his affairs. A diocese is an independent legal entity. But I can’t imagine a bishop using that legal fact to defy the Pope. But apparently the Order is using their legal status in that manner, which seems wrong to me (even if its legal).

 

[robertmidwest]

You don’t think member will leave if unhappy and donation will drop if people are unhappy?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You don’t think member will leave if unhappy and donation will drop if people are unhappy?

But that is the point. They are bound by a lifetime commitment. You can’t simply leave if you are unhappy. You would have to go through their process of departing the Order.

This is nothing like the Americans and their “Knights of Columbus.” This is not simply an organisation or a charitable aid society that one associates oneself with and then stops being involved with.

This is a thousand year old Religious Order. There are various categories within the Order, culminating with those who emit vows and are, for all purposes of Canon Law, Religious…in spite of not observing elements that today are seen as essential to Religious Life.

For those beyond the first class, these are still members of a Religious Order.

One does not…one cannot simply walk away for being “unhappy.”

 

[mrdrifter]

Dan Hitchens of the Catholic Herald offers his take. After providing some background on Boeselager’s dismissal, Hitchens writes:

This would have remained an internal matter, except that Pope Francis himself became involved. On November 10, he had a meeting with the order’s patron, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who serves as an intermediary between the Vatican and the order. At the beginning of December, according to sources within the order, the Pope wrote Cardinal Burke a letter asking the order to take action against any possible cause of moral scandal. The exact content of the letter is unknown; but it was universally taken as a reference to the Boeselager situation.

I’m told that the mood at the Order of Malta’s headquarters was largely one of relief. The issue of Boeselager’s alleged wrongdoing had dragged on for some time without resolution. …] But now that the Pope was expressing his alarm, it seemed impossible to put off decisive action. …]

Some Boeselager supporters say that Fra’ Festing and Cardinal Burke (who was also present) claimed the sacking was on the Pope’s explicit advice. According to the well-connected Vatican reporter Edward Pentin, of the National Catholic Register, that is not quite right. The Grand Master and the cardinal did not claim direct authority; rather, “the Knights’ leadership could not see how the matter could be otherwise rectified, when great scandal was involved and no one was taking responsibility for it.”

Read the whole thing here:
catholicherald.co.uk/issues/january-13th-2017/the-knights-who-wont-retreat/

 

[robertmidwest]

Your pro file says you are an attorney. You are an attorney for (name removed by moderator)?

 

[robertmidwest]

But that is the point. They are bound by a lifetime commitment. You can’t simply leave if you are unhappy. You would have to go through their process of departing the Order.

This is nothing like the Americans and their “Knights of Columbus.” This is not simply an organisation or a charitable aid society that one associates oneself with and then stops being involved with.

This is a thousand year old Religious Order. There are various categories within the Order, culminating with those who emit vows and are, for all purposes of Canon Law, Religious…in spite of not observing elements that today are seen as essential to Religious Life.

For those beyond the first class, these are still members of a Religious Order.

One does not…one cannot simply walk away for being “unhappy.”

Their income is dependent on the organization? They are not lay people? If they walk away their families don’t eat?

 

[robertmidwest]

Dan Hitchens of the Catholic Herald offers his take. After providing some background on Boeselager’s dismissal, Hitchens writes:

Read the whole thing here:
catholicherald.co.uk/issues/january-13th-2017/the-knights-who-wont-retreat/

From the article:

This would have remained an internal matter, except that Pope Francis himself became involved. On November 10, he had a meeting with the order’s patron, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who serves as an intermediary between the Vatican and the order. At the beginning of December, according to sources within the order, the Pope wrote Cardinal Burke a letter asking the order to take action against any possible cause of moral scandal. The exact content of the letter is unknown; but it was universally taken as a reference to the Boeselager situation.

It is interesting that the organization felt it necessary to act when the pope ask for it on November 10th.

But when they don’t like his reply later it’s “The pope has no right to interfere with the matter.”

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Their income is dependent on the organization? They are not lay people? If they walk away their families don’t eat?

Your questions make no sense to me. That is not how a lifetime commitment with a Religious Order works.

I have known and worked with many Religious who were, for example, professors in institutes of higher learning or hospital chaplains. They were paid by their employing universities or hospitals respectively. What does that have to do with this matter? That they had income had absolutely no impact on living out the reality of being Religious, that they had made vows and vows for a lifetime. To simply “walk away” is to break a solemn commitment to God.

A man can abandon his wife. He can say, by the act of walking away, that he has ended it and that he is not married. He has not, by walking way, removed the reality that he is still a man that is married.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It is interesting that the organization felt it necessary to act when the pope ask for it on November 10th.

But when they don’t like his reply later it’s “The pope has no right to interfere with the matter.”

Frankly, I think the article from start to finish does a poor job of characterising the matters as they touch on all the aspects. Even the history is not well related, when one knows it.

 

[robertmidwest]

Your questions make no sense to me. That is not how a lifetime commitment with a Religious Order works.

I have known and worked with many Religious who were, for example, professors in institutes of higher learning or hospital chaplains. They were paid by their employing universities or hospitals respectively. What does that have to do with this matter? That they had income had absolutely no impact on living out the reality of being Religious, that they had made vows and vows for a lifetime. To simply “walk away” is to break a solemn commitment to God.

A man can abandon his wife. He can say, by the act of walking away, that he has ended it and that he is not married. He has not, by walking way, removed the reality that he is still a man that is married.

If they see the organization as doing something unethical they will walk away and take there commitment somewhere else.

Boeselager has 4 kids. How many of the other 100,000 members are family men or women who also happen to be a member of the order? What happens to these people if they believe the order is no longer representing the Catholic Church?

 

[robertmidwest]

Again from the article:

But now that the Pope was expressing his alarm, it seemed impossible to put off decisive action. On December 6 the Grand Master, Fra’ Matthew Festing, called in Boeselager for a meeting.

At one point the popes (name removed by moderator)ut seems to mean something.

But when they don’t like his (name removed by moderator)ut then it’s “This is an internal matter. We don’t want your opinion.”