CHA Will Review the Proposed New Rules for the HHS Mandate

[gilliam]

CHA looks forward to reviewing the specifics of the changes in the mandated benefits. Many members have called with questions about these since they were a concern as first published. On Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, we were notified that our organizations would not have to buy or refer employees for contraception and other services. We were also told that the self-insured plans would be accommodated in this. At this time, there are many unanswered questions about specifics. We now have the challenging work of reviewing the proposed rules, examining their impact and giving (name removed by moderator)ut before they are finalized.

Because many members have asked about specifics in the rules and also the process for applying for the one-year exception, we have included links to the rules and to the guidance on the safe harbor with this email.

As more is known about this, we will be getting that information out to the membership as quickly as possible.

chausa.org/Pages/About_CHA/Presidents_Page/HHS_Mandate/

They haven’t bought it all yet

 

[iloveangels]

CHA looks forward to reviewing the specifics of the changes in the mandated benefits. Many members have called with questions about these since they were a concern as first published. On Friday, Feb. 10, 2012, we were notified that our organizations would not have to buy or refer employees for contraception and other services. We were also told that the self-insured plans would be accommodated in this. At this time, there are many unanswered questions about specifics. We now have the challenging work of reviewing the proposed rules, examining their impact and giving (name removed by moderator)ut before they are finalized.

Because many members have asked about specifics in the rules and also the process for applying for the one-year exception, we have included links to the rules and to the guidance on the safe harbor with this email.

As more is known about this, we will be getting that information out to the membership as quickly as possible.

chausa.org/Pages/About_CHA/Presidents_Page/HHS_Mandate/

They haven’t bought it all yet

I hope they get their face rubbed in it for their complicity last year. Serves them right.

I wonder if the word is going out that if you want to have the word “Catholic” in your name, then you’d better act like it. This is exactly right and appropriate.

 

[Joe_5859]

Interesting. Many outlets have reported that CHA’s statement came out even before the White House’s announcement. It makes me wonder if what CHA was told would be announced and what was actually announced are a bit different.

 

[iloveangels]

Interesting. Many outlets have reported that CHA’s statement came out even before the White House’s announcement. It makes me wonder if what CHA was told would be announced and what was actually announced are a bit different.

And indeed, what their website says doesn’t bear any likeness whatsoever to what the “revised” mandate said. They’re dramatically different. Who knows what’s going on?

 

[turtle18]

Why can’t their charter be revoked for claiming to be Catholic when they are so disobedient and claim to represent Catholics, which they don’t?

 

[The_Rock]

They also still have the earlier statement praising the non-existent “accommodation”.
All this so the White House can pretend they tryed to address th Church’s concerns.

chausa.org/Pages/Newsroom/Releases/2012/Catholic_Health_Association_is_Very_Pleased_with_Todays_White_House_Resolution_that_Protects_Religious_Liberty_and_Conscience_Rights/

 

[The_Rock]

Why can’t their charter be revoked for claiming to be Catholic when they are so disobedient and claim to represent Catholics, which they don’t?

I think this is exactly the outcome the Obama administration and possibally the administrators of CHA are hoping for. Once the Catholic Church disowns the CHA it can freely administer abortions etc.etc. I believe they would like nothing better than the removal of Catholic institutions from the public square.

Does the Church have the power to replace the current leaders of this and other Catholic institutions rather than simply seperating the institutions from the Church?

 

[iloveangels]

I think this is exactly the outcome the Obama administration and possibally the administrators of CHA are hoping for. Once the Catholic Church disowns the CHA it can freely administer abortions etc.etc. I believe they would like nothing better than the removal of Catholic institutions from the public square.

Does the Church have the power to replace the current leaders of this and other Catholic institutions rather than simply seperating the institutions from the Church?

No, no. The Catholic Health Association is nothing without its name. There would be nothing to make anyone choose it over any other hospital association or any other health association. IT gets its funding from Catholics. There is probably a lot of discussion going on about this internal to CHA. They’d like to get away with things the way they have been, I’m sure. They can’t be allowed to.

I’m sure there’s a lot of talking going on at the USCCB too. It has become fairly apparent that we cannot go on the way we have been in the past.

If the sex abuse scandals of 2001 were the Waterloo for the priests, this is the Waterloo for the laity. Catholics have been pretty comfortable, slumming along like the Church wsa just our hobby or something. We are going to have to straighten up and fly right or stop pretending to be Catholic. What Catholics have been doing looks just terrible. Say one thing, do another.

 

[The_Rock]

Catholic Healthcare West (25 Hospitals) cut ties with the Catholic Church and became Dignity Health.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=637748&highlight=Catholic+Healthcare+West

Why wouldn’t it happen with CHA?

I believe it is very possible this is the long term intended purpose of the mandate.

 

[jwinch2]

Why wouldn’t it happen with CHA?

I believe it is very possible this is the long term intended purpose of the mandate.

Perhaps, but for one thing, the CHA is actually run by Sisters who I believe belong to a Congregation of Pontifical Right. This is actually part of the problem as by not being under a Bishop, only their superior or the Holy Father can really reign them in.

However, the fact that they are might make it harder to break away as well. Furthermore, it would also pretty much remove them from the political arena. Right now, they are involved in these discussions because they have the word “catholic” in their name. If they do not, they lose their political attraction to a large extent by becoming just one more health care provider.

chausa.org/Pages/Directories/Staff_Directory/Sr__Carol_Keehan/

Sister Keehan’s bio and contact info is in the link above. Perhaps it is time for a writing campaign urging the CHA to be in compliance with the Magesterial teaching of the Church.

Peace,

 

[KCT]

A generation of touchy- feely, kumbaya catechesis has left us w/ Catholics who have no idea what the Church teaches and no idea whom to listen to.

The bishops have a lot of cleaning up to do…

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps, but for one thing, the CHA is actually run by Sisters who I believe belong to a Congregation of Pontifical Right. This is actually part of the problem as by not being under a Bishop, only their superior or the Holy Father can really reign them in.

There are two points here.

First:

There is a distinction between a religious community of Pontifical Right and the organization that it runs. If the organization belongs to the community, then the bishops are bound by Canon Law to protect it and the laity is bound to finance the apostolic activities of the organization.

However, if the organization belongs to a diocese or the conference of bishops, those running it are employees and must run it according to the policies and goals of the employer.

Second:

The Council of Trent decreed that Religious of Pontifical Right were not to be tampered with by either the bishops or the laity. The exemption is actually given to the individual religious, not to the community. Every religious who belongs to such a community is exempt from intervention from bishops and laity.

However, the Council of Trent also established that the pope would not interfere in the internal affairs of exempt religious and would allow the major superiors to deal with those issues. The pope remains the highest ranking superior of every institute of Pontifical Right, but he does not involve himself in their affairs, except to ratify elections and promulgate their constitutions. Every sister that you see in a business suit has the seal of approval of the pope. Several popes have made it clear that they are not interested in resolving the problems of exempt religious, unless they go up the chain of command. They apply the Principle of Subsidiarity.

The exemption only applies to the way that the religious live, work, dress, pray, form their people, where they live, the ministry they do and to the running of their houses and institutions. It does not apply to work that they do for someone else, such as a diocese.

On the other hand, the Conference of Bishops and the dioceses cannot ask exempt religious to do anything that is contrary to the rules and constitutions of their community. When these religious are hired to take over these posts, there is an understanding of what the religious is allowed to do and what he or she is not allowed to do. The community cannot impose its will on the employer and the employer cannot impose its will on the community.

Sister Keehan’s bio and contact info is in the link above. Perhaps it is time for a writing campaign urging the CHA to be in compliance with the Magesterial teaching of the Church.

Peace,

One has to be very careful with this type of thing. When dealing with an exempt religious there are lines that neither the laity nor the bishops can cross without violating the Canons of Trent, which are still in effect. No one, except the major superior can call an exempt religious to task. If I do so or you do so, we are violating a regulation set up by Trent that has not been changed in 500 years. The Code of Canon Law still recognizes the existence of exempt religious.

One can safely communicate a concern and make suggestions. A Catholic cannot violate the law in order to protect another law. By that, I mean that you can’t call an exempt religious to task. Communicating a concern and making suggestions is a canonical right. Calling a religious to task is a right reserved only to a select few. Pontifical Right means that the Pontiff himself is your protector and advocate. One has to be clear in expressing one’s concerns, but remain within the boundaries allowed by the Church.

There are many people, including religious who have said to Sister Carol, “Try this” or “Have you thought about that?” or "This concerns me, because . . . " Notice, no one is calling her to task. Besides, unless you’re in the board room, you really don’t know what Sister said or is thinking. You only know the little that you pick up here and there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

There are two points here.

First:

There is a distinction between a religious community of Pontifical Right and the organization that it runs. If the organization belongs to the community, then the bishops are bound by Canon Law to protect it and the laity is bound to finance the apostolic activities of the organization.

However, if the organization belongs to a diocese or the conference of bishops, those running it are employees and must run it according to the policies and goals of the employer.

Second:

The Council of Trent decreed that Religious of Pontifical Right were not to be tampered with by either the bishops or the laity. The exemption is actually given to the individual religious, not to the community. Every religious who belongs to such a community is exempt from intervention from bishops and laity.

However, the Council of Trent also established that the pope would not interfere in the internal affairs of exempt religious and would allow the major superiors to deal with those issues. The pope remains the highest ranking superior of every institute of Pontifical Right, but he does not involve himself in their affairs, except to ratify elections and promulgate their constitutions. Every sister that you see in a business suit has the seal of approval of the pope. Several popes have made it clear that they are not interested in resolving the problems of exempt religious, unless they go up the chain of command. They apply the Principle of Subsidiarity.

The exemption only applies to the way that the religious live, work, dress, pray, form their people, where they live, the ministry they do and to the running of their houses and institutions. It does not apply to work that they do for someone else, such as a diocese.

On the other hand, the Conference of Bishops and the dioceses cannot ask exempt religious to do anything that is contrary to the rules and constitutions of their community. When these religious are hired to take over these posts, there is an understanding of what the religious is allowed to do and what he or she is not allowed to do. The community cannot impose its will on the employer and the employer cannot impose its will on the community.

One has to be very careful with this type of thing. When dealing with an exempt religious there are lines that neither the laity nor the bishops can cross without violating the Canons of Trent, which are still in effect. No one, except the major superior can call an exempt religious to task. If I do so or you do so, we are violating a regulation set up by Trent that has not been changed in 500 years. The Code of Canon Law still recognizes the existence of exempt religious.

One can safely communicate a concern and make suggestions. A Catholic cannot violate the law in order to protect another law. By that, I mean that you can’t call an exempt religious to task. Communicating a concern and making suggestions is a canonical right. Calling a religious to task is a right reserved only to a select few. Pontifical Right means that the Pontiff himself is your protector and advocate. One has to be clear in expressing one’s concerns, but remain within the boundaries allowed by the Church.

There are many people, including religious who have said to Sister Carol, “Try this” or “Have you thought about that?” or "This concerns me, because . . . " Notice, no one is calling her to task. Besides, unless you’re in the board room, you really don’t know what Sister said or is thinking. You only know the little that you pick up here and there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate the response Brother as always. However, I don’t believe it is “calling someone to task” to request that they consider Church teaching in the formulation of policies for organizations that they are involved with, and in this case manage. I also don’t believe it is “calling someone to task” to request that they consider the impact on the faithful and the Church at large and the potential scandal which exists if thing are handled improperly.

I agree that it needs to be handled charitably, but I still believe it needs to happen. You are right of course that there is no way for me or anyone else to know what is in Sr. Carol’s heart. However, what is painfully easy to see are the fruits of her actions. Furthermore, if anyone who has the authority has stepped in, it has apparently been done in a non-public fashion. Unfortunately however, the scandal is one of a public nature.

Every time something like this happens, more of the laity who are unsure about where the Church stands are confused, and the ones who are sure and trying to live their lives properly are disillusioned. This has been going on for way too long, and it is time for it to stop. Past time.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate the response Brother as always. However, I don’t believe it is “calling someone to task” to request that they consider Church teaching in the formulation of policies for organizations that they are involved with, and in this case manage. I also don’t believe it is “calling someone to task” to request that they consider the impact on the faithful and the Church at large and the potential scandal which exists if thing are handled improperly.

I agree with your concerns, but I would word it differently. Allow me.

Instead of saying “That you consider Church teachings . . .”, I would say that “I am concerned that we are out of compliance with Church teaching.” This way, I’m not telling that person that they have not considered said teachings.I have no way of knowing that. I would also say that, "I am concerned about the impact on the faithful . . . " and I would give some real examples. I would stay away from saying that they are being handled improperly, because we don’t know another person’s job until we have stepped into his or her shoes. However, we do know what we see. We can describe that and bring it to another person’s attention.

Furthermore, if anyone who has the authority has stepped in, it has apparently been done in a non-public fashion. Unfortunately however, the scandal is one of a public nature.

Many times, there are private interventions and they are kept that way for a very specific purpose.

Every time something like this happens, more of the laity who are unsure about where the Church stands are confused, and the ones who are sure and trying to live their lives properly are disillusioned. This has been going on for way too long, and it is time for it to stop. Past time.

I see the disappointment and frustration of many people and I always give them the same advice. Around here it’s a little easier, because the local people have a visual. I always point to our brothers, the Missionaries of Charity down the road, the Discalced Carmelite Nuns in town and the Cistercian monks on the west side of the city. I always tell the folks around here to look at all of these people. They’re all Catholics just like you. They go about their daily business living in the present moment attending to what the Lord puts before them. Every action and every prayer is offered for the Church. The most beautiful thing that they do for the Church is that they never become disappointed. They have disciplined themselves to focus on what’s before them and to trust that if they are faithful in the little things before them, the Holy Spirit will pour grace upon grace on the world.

As I said, around here its easier, because people have a visual. They have these men and women living within a 20 mile radius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

I agree with your concerns, but I would word it differently. Allow me.

Instead of saying “That you consider Church teachings . . .”, I would say that “I am concerned that we are out of compliance with Church teaching.” This way, I’m not telling that person that they have not considered said teachings.I have no way of knowing that. I would also say that, "I am concerned about the impact on the faithful . . . " and I would give some real examples. I would stay away from saying that they are being handled improperly, because we don’t know another person’s job until we have stepped into his or her shoes. However, we do know what we see. We can describe that and bring it to another person’s attention.

All fair points. Thanks.

Many times, there are private interventions and they are kept that way for a very specific purpose.

I agree, to a point.

At some point it is time to at least protect the faithful from confusion and scandal by making public statements about the situation. At what point does the need to protect the flock override the desire to handle things in-house? All bureaucracies have their problems and issues which those on the inside are aware of. In addition, as you have mentioned more than once, all families have their problem children.

However, what we have is a situation where the problems are out in the open for all to see, and the problem children are causing issues outside of their family in the name of the Church. In situations such as that, the solutions need to be out in the open as well. Or, at the very least, the problem children locked away so that they cannot cause harm to others. However, the better option is for things to be more public. Sometimes, an example needs to be set so that other problem children can see what happens if they do not fall into line and the good kids can see that justice is being implemented properly and fairly.

I see the disappointment and frustration of many people and I always give them the same advice. Around here it’s a little easier, because the local people have a visual. I always point to our brothers, the Missionaries of Charity down the road, the Discalced Carmelite Nuns in town and the Cistercian monks on the west side of the city. I always tell the folks around here to look at all of these people. They’re all Catholics just like you. They go about their daily business living in the present moment attending to what the Lord puts before them. Every action and every prayer is offered for the Church. The most beautiful thing that they do for the Church is that they never become disappointed. They have disciplined themselves to focus on what’s before them and to trust that if they are faithful in the little things before them, the Holy Spirit will pour grace upon grace on the world.

As I said, around here its easier, because people have a visual. They have these men and women living within a 20 mile radius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

All true as well. However, I would suggest that if you are noticing the frustration and disappointment in a setting such as what you have described, it is likely to be far worse in places which do not have those types of witnesses to the faith in their area. Even in a rural setting such as where I am at, I can look to our pastor and our deacons. I can look to the example of the religious I know and interact with. However, that doesn’t make the other stuff which is going on right. It also does not protect someone from scandal, confusion, or disillusionment.

The situation with Sister Keehan, Sister Phelps OP, the Jesuit schools which have come out in the support of the HHS “compromise”, and others, is causing a great deal of harm and has been for far too long. Also, what of the superiors who are supposed to have oversight over these individuals? Are they doing their jobs? I cannot help but wonder at how many souls have been led away from the Faith due to actions such as these.

I would also point out that in reality, we should not have to deal with conflicting images and messages in the first place. In the world we live in there are enough distractions from the faith. There are enough reasons to doubt, question, or find confusion from outside the Church. At the very least, our shepherds have a duty to protect us from such things coming from inside the Church; and if our religious, priests, deacons, or bishops are leading us away from the Church rather than towards her, we have a serious problem.

I guess this is a very long winded way of saying that I stand by my comment that it is well past time for the Holy Father to have gotten involved.

Thanks again Brother. And peace…

Jason

 

[JReducation]

The situation with Sister Keehan, Sister Phelps OP, the Jesuit schools which have come out in the support of the HHS “compromise”, and others, is causing a great deal of harm and has been for far too long. Also, what of the superiors who are supposed to have oversight over these individuals? Are they doing their jobs? I cannot help but wonder at how many souls have been led away from the Faith due to actions such as these.

I would also point out that in reality, we should not have to deal with conflicting images and messages in the first place. In the world we live in there are enough distractions from the faith. There are enough reasons to doubt, question, or find confusion from outside the Church. At the very least, our shepherds have a duty to protect us from such things coming from inside the Church; and if our religious, priests, deacons, or bishops are leading us away from the Church rather than towards her, we have a serious problem.

I guess this is a very long winded way of saying that I stand by my comment that it is well past time for the Holy Father to have gotten involved.

Thanks again Brother. And peace…

Jason

There is a lot here. I’ll just make a few clarifications and then we can leave this alone for the moment.

Let’s begin with the Holy Father. Popes do not make it their business to get involved in the affairs of the local Churches until the problems reach them through the proper chain of command. Otherwise, they would be unable to govern. The Church is too big.

In addition, popes do not involve themselves in the affairs of religious unless it is proven that they are knowingly violating the law, as was the case with the Legionaries.

Religious superiors can only discipline a religious if there is evidence that the religious is deliberately violating the law. If there is a negative result to a prudential decision that the religious made, but the intent was different, the superior cannot discipline. The Sacred Congregation for Religious and the Pope will not allow it. You are not guilty of something that you did not intend to happen.

When superiors discipline their brethren, they may never do so in public. Again, that is forbidden by the Sacred Congregation for Religious. If the religious takes his case to the public, the superior has the right to respond, as was the case with Fr. Corapi. You can’t publicly discipline a religious who is guilty of a misdeed as an example. That violates Pontifical Right.

In dealing with exempt religious, the bishops and the papacy makes a distinction between the obligations of an organization and the obligations of the religious. The religious works for the organization. He has an obligation to comply with organization policies. The head of an organization may not be the person who makes policies. He may simply be the person who represents those policies and executes them.

If the person does not do his job as expected, then the organization has the right to end the relationship with the person. The organization does not have the right to discipline an exempt religious. That’s what the Council of Trent meant when it called it the Right of Exemption. The choice to discipline falls on the superior and he can only do so, if there was a deliberate misdeed. The burden of proof is always on the superior.

As to the Jesuit colleges, the Holy Father has no jurisdiction there and neither does the Jesuit Superior General. Fr. Mitch Pacwa answered this question one night on EWTN. The Jesuits have surrendered their colleges to lay organizations. They may own the property, but not the institution. The board runs the college, not the Jesuits. The Jesuit superior does not even have the right to assign men to the colleges or to pull them until the contract runs out. Each Jesuit teaching at one of their colleges must apply for the position and compete, just like any other professor. There is a contract between the Jesuits and the college stipulating the terms of employment.

There are few religious communities that still own their own colleges. To the best of my knowledge, the Dominicans, Franciscans and several Benedictine abbeys still do. In the case of the Jesuits, the Superior General cannot dictate to the college. He can only dictate to his men and he must limit himself to the terms of the contract. It’s a very difficult situation.

There is certainly room for improvement in the way that we do things. But we must also be careful not to break a law in order to fix something. The end never justifies the means. We have to discern how to fix things in a way that is legal and how to do it ourselves, because the Vatican wants us to deal with our own problems. The Holy Father has already spoken on this particular issue. His orders were that the bishops were to rally the faithful in the USA to address this problem. This includes all Catholics: clergy, religious and laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

There is a lot here. I’ll just make a few clarifications and then we can leave this alone for the moment.

Let’s begin with the Holy Father. Popes do not make it their business to get involved in the affairs of the local Churches until the problems reach them through the proper chain of command. Otherwise, they would be unable to govern. The Church is too big.

In addition, popes do not involve themselves in the affairs of religious unless it is proven that they are knowingly violating the law, as was the case with the Legionaries.

Religious superiors can only discipline a religious if there is evidence that the religious is deliberately violating the law. If there is a negative result to a prudential decision that the religious made, but the intent was different, the superior cannot discipline. The Sacred Congregation for Religious and the Pope will not allow it. You are not guilty of something that you did not intend to happen.

When superiors discipline their brethren, they may never do so in public. Again, that is forbidden by the Sacred Congregation for Religious. If the religious takes his case to the public, the superior has the right to respond, as was the case with Fr. Corapi. You can’t publicly discipline a religious who is guilty of a misdeed as an example. That violates Pontifical Right.

In dealing with exempt religious, the bishops and the papacy makes a distinction between the obligations of an organization and the obligations of the religious. The religious works for the organization. He has an obligation to comply with organization policies. The head of an organization may not be the person who makes policies. He may simply be the person who represents those policies and executes them.

If the person does not do his job as expected, then the organization has the right to end the relationship with the person. The organization does not have the right to discipline an exempt religious. That’s what the Council of Trent meant when it called it the Right of Exemption. The choice to discipline falls on the superior and he can only do so, if there was a deliberate misdeed. The burden of proof is always on the superior.

You are right on the Jesuit colleges of course. You have made that point previously and I let it slip my mind for some reason.

However, I fail to see how the situation with Sr. Keehan and others could be one where they have not knowingly disobeyed. Church teaching on this is quite clear and has been for a long time. Furthermore, if the Holy Father is not aware of these matters I will eat my hat. It has been going on for a very long time, and in a public forum. Finally, if we are talking about a congregation of pontifical right, then he is the only one who can intervene, and doing so would hardly be interfering in local churches.

Right now, the Church seems to be waiting for non-orthodox bishops, priests, religious, and lay ministers to retire rather than forcing the issue in anyway. Is it getting better? Yes, I do think so. The newer crop of bishops, priests, and religious seem to be very orthodox. I know that the Church takes the long view on things, but there are millions of souls in the balance. At some point, and soon, the Church needs to take an aggressive stance to protect her flock. Frankly, waiting it out does not seem to be the appropriate response.

There is certainly room for improvement in the way that we do things. But we must also be careful not to break a law in order to fix something. The end never justifies the means. We have to discern how to fix things in a way that is legal and how to do it ourselves, because the Vatican wants us to deal with our own problems. The Holy Father has already spoken on this particular issue. His orders were that the bishops were to rally the faithful in the USA to address this problem. This includes all Catholics: clergy, religious and laity.

There are a few points here that I wish to address. First, you have made it clear on more than one occasion that the Holy Father can set aside Canon Law when he sees fit. Secondly, I agree that the Bishops do seem to be stepping up to the plate right now in response to the call from the Holy Father. However, that will not alter the situation with exempt religious. Per my understanding, only the Pope can deal with that situation.

Peace, and thanks!

Jason

 

[JReducation]

You are right on the Jesuit colleges of course. You have made that point previously and I let it slip my mind for some reason.

However, I fail to see how the situation with Sr. Keehan and others could be one where they have not knowingly disobeyed. Church teaching on this is quite clear and has been for a long time. Furthermore, if the Holy Father is not aware of these matters I will eat my hat. It has been going on for a very long time, and in a public forum. Finally, if we are talking about a congregation of pontifical right, then he is the only one who can intervene, and doing so would hardly be interfering in local churches.

Right now, the Church seems to be waiting for non-orthodox bishops, priests, religious, and lay ministers to retire rather than forcing the issue in anyway. Is it getting better? Yes, I do think so. The newer crop of bishops, priests, and religious seem to be very orthodox. I know that the Church takes the long view on things, but there are millions of souls in the balance. At some point, and soon, the Church needs to take an aggressive stance to protect her flock. Frankly, waiting it out does not seem to be the appropriate response.

There are a few points here that I wish to address. First, you have made it clear on more than one occasion that the Holy Father can set aside Canon Law when he sees fit. Secondly, I agree that the Bishops do seem to be stepping up to the plate right now in response to the call from the Holy Father. However, that will not alter the situation with exempt religious. Per my understanding, only the Pope can deal with that situation.

Peace, and thanks!

Jason

The current policy in the Vatican is to leave the exempt religious alone. Let their superiors deal with them according to the law and according to their constitutions. Of course the law and the constitutions set very clear boundaries on the authority of superiors. Some have more latitude than others.

In each case, the superior’s authority is going to be different, depending on the constitutions of his or her community. Canon Law demands that superiors obey those constitutions. The only person that can override Canon Law is the Holy Father. But he has made it quite clear that he will not ride rough shot over religious superiors.

Each time he makes a policy he always pulls aside the exempt religious and leaves those decisions to their superiors.

I don’t foresee the Holy Father calling an individual exempt religious to task, especially when there is no proof that the person deliberately did evil or deliberately violated Canon Law. If that were the case, it has to be dealt with by the Major Superior first. There has to be an investigation. The religious can ask for a trial and it has to be granted. That can take up to a year or more to get to the tribunal. If deliberate misbehavior is proven, then the superior can discipline according to the laws that govern his community. If he feels that more is necessary, he must appeal to the Holy See. The complaints never go directly to the pope. Popes have made it very clear that they don’t want to get pulled into issues that have to be dealt with by the religious community. They will only intervene when there is a problem that affects the entire religious community, not one religious or several.

In this case, the CHA has said that it’s looking at the alleged proposal that the President put on the table. The President’s solution is not really a solution, as I understand it. However, it’s not a case where the CHA is sitting doing nothing. I think CHA is hoping that the President will yield more and I don’t believe it will happen without the voters pushing for it.

In your parish there should have been another update and more directions from the USCCB on this situation. It came out this weekend. Obviously, people are talking to each other, if updates and suggestions are coming out. To be frank, I have no idea to whom the CHA answers. It may be an independent association for all I know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Furthermore, if the Holy Father is not aware of these matters I will eat my hat. It has been going on for a very long time, and in a public forum.

The USA is not the center of the world. The Holy Father is most likely not obsessed with the USA and has his attention taken with a variety of things on any given day. The world’s a big place with lots going on…

 

[jwinch2]

The USA is not the center of the world. The Holy Father is most likely not obsessed with the USA and has his attention taken with a variety of things on any given day. The world’s a big place with lots going on…

Father,

With respect, I would remind you that these sort of things have been going on for some time now. As noted above, the Holy Father has specifically asked all of the Bishops to stand up and rally the faithful. I find it highly unlikely that he is unaware of the obstacles which exist, both within and from outside of the Church.