Knights of Malta head resigns after dispute with Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
What will happen to the diplomatic relations the Order enjoys with dozens of nations? Or does the Pope essentially become the Sovereign of both states - the Vatican and the Knights of Malta - ruling through his delegate?
Click to expand...
Not much will change. The Order of Malta is not a state, nor does it have true sovereignty. It is classified as a permanent observer within the United Nations. It is more specifically an entity having received a standing invitation to participate as observers.
un.org/en/sections/member-states/intergovernmental-organizations/index.html
LordHaveMercy said:
Because the Order of Malta is sovereign under international law (unlike the Jesuits and the Legionaries), this is essentially the Holy See annexing a sovereign entity. This would be similar to the state of Italy exerting control over the Vatican City.
Click to expand...
It is not classified as a sovereign entity. The United Nations classifies it as a permanent observer entity. Other entities with this classification include the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Olympic Committee. The Holy See, however, is classified as a state by the United Nations. More specifically, it is classified as a permanent observer non-member state. Currently, the only other permanent observer non-member state is the State of Palestine.
un.org/en/sections/member-states/non-member-states/index.html
 
mikeeh said:
Not since they were kicked out of the island of Malta.

I agree. The sovereignty they were granted centuries ago was intended to protect them from other religious orders and secular kingdoms from interfering with their order. It never granted the order full sovereignty from the Church. Over the centuries they were forced out of the Holy Land to Rhodes and then from Rhodes to Malta. They most likely applied the title of sovereign to continue diplomatic relations with other kingdoms. Any political sovereignty the order had was lost when they were exiled from Malta.
Click to expand...
Actually, no it was not.
 
I think we are getting into ‘purge’ territory here, to reference Phil Lawler.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1197
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1198
The Vatican purge, continued: packing the College of Cardinals
The ideological purge at the Vatican
Click to expand...
I agree it is happening and that former Popes did not do it so obviously or relentlessly. (because they possessed a more universal, comprehensive view of the RCC) The good news is we should have plenty of available talent when the crack up comes.
 
From Ed Pentin at The Catholic Register,“Pope Francis Declares All of Festing’s Recent Acts ‘Null and Void’”:
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-declares-all-of-fra-festings-recent-acts-null-and-void
Writing on the Pope’s behalf to members of the Order’s governing council Jan. 25, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin stated that the Holy Father, “on the basis of evidence that has emerged from information he has gathered, has determined that all actions taken by the Grand Master after December 6, 2016, are null and void.”
Click to expand...
He added: “The same is true for those of the Sovereign Council, such as the election of the Grand Chancellor ad interim.” The Council elected Fra’ John Critien as Boeselager’s temporary replacement.
Click to expand...
 
Pulvis said:
Actually, no it was not.
Click to expand...
You’re right. I missed the part about the order receiving independence through Pontifical deed while they were in Rhodes. Of course, without knowing what is stated in the deed I do not know if their sovereignty was extended beyond leaving Rhodes. The Treaty of Amiens was supposed to establish their secular sovereignty, but peace did not last long before the treaty was broken. Some states continued to recognize their sovereignty for a time after their exile from Malta, but in the modern era their political sovereignty is more of a relic of the past. Sure they issue their own passport, but it is only for a select few and those select few still have passports from their respected countries. And as a Catholic order their sovereignty stops under the authority of the Holy See.

orderofmalta.int/history/1048-to-the-present/
 
pnewton said:
Well, it is clear he is no fan of the Pope. That is all I get from this mess.
Click to expand...
PNewton, in all Charity, at some point the smoke becomes to thick to ignore the fire. I am trying, really trying, to keep an objective, open mind on the news coming from The Vatican. I give the holy Father the benefit of the doubt on all of this since I am not privy to the facts. And I try to ignore mere speculation and personal opinion pieces. But it is becoming more difficult be the day.
 
Pressing ahead with his takeover of the Knights of Malta, Pope Francis had declared that all recent decisions by the group’s leadership “are null and void.”

More…
 
Pulvis said:
PNewton, in all Charity, at some point the smoke becomes to thick to ignore the fire. I am trying, really trying, to keep an objective, open mind on the news coming from The Vatican. I give the holy Father the benefit of the doubt on all of this since I am not privy to the facts. And I try to ignore mere speculation and personal opinion pieces. But it is becoming more difficult be the day.
Click to expand...
I totally understand that. However bear in mind that the smoke analogy is lost on the internet. There is way too much cross posting of what passes for news, and even more so with opinions. Take the link above. It is blog from a priest about a blog from a layman about a news article from the Catholic Herald. The actual facts of the story are not all that strange. The Knights of Malta are civilly independent, but unless they choose to break from the Catholic Church, must still answer to the Pope to some degree. I mean, this isn’t a big deal, nor, if you study history, is it the first time the two entities have come into conflict. I really wish they would disband the whole thing, as it is little more than a vestige of the time when the Church wielded secular power. (either that or divest itself of its secular titles and roles). On the other hand, when I see some of the people in the Curia, and some of the appointments the Pope has made, it is hard for me to see a “purge.” Lawler’s position is an insult to all those who work diligently in the Church, Mueller, Pell, Sarah, and many others.

I do think there is a resistance to the idea that the Pope would look to who might best serve and not just who is up next on the seniority list. I will admit that he has taken a new twist in his appointments.
 
As has been noted, the announcement that a Papal Delegate will be appointed to the Order seems to render Cardinal Burke redundant in his capacity as Cardinal Patron. As Cardinal Patron he IS the Pope’s delegate to the Order, but without jurisdiction of governance. If not for the various differences between His Holiness and His Eminence, all things being equal, it would be logical to grant the Cardinal Patron temporary governance over the Order if the Vatican is determined to step in.
 
The problem is that what is happening is just so obvious. Just like any other organization - the new guy comes in, shakes things up. Takes down opponents. But the Church needs to operate on a higher level. It cannot just be about furthering one individual man’s vision of what the Church needs to progress to. Power grabs, politicking (though this does echo back to rather darker days in the Church - much darker of course, world empire days). To me this is a lack of awareness or respect for the mission, history and universality of the Church. Smallness of vision. Lack of generosity of spirit. Serving individual goals at the expense of the Church.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Power grabs, politicking (though this does echo back to rather darker days in the Church - much darker of course, world empire days). To me this is a lack of awareness or respect for the mission, history and universality of the Church. Smallness of vision. Lack of generosity of spirit. Serving individual goals at the expense of the Church.
Click to expand...
That is a rather uncharitable characterization of the Holy Father. I will be surprised if this passes muster here.

You know the catechism demands we give the most charitable interpretation. I found this, said following a change in the Cardinal for Bishops.
archive.jsonline.com/news/religion/pope-francis-removes-former-la-crosse-bishop-raymond-burke-b99165146z1-236134851.html
“He is saying that you don’t need to be a conservative to become a bishop,” said Alberto Melloni, the director of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna, Italy, a liberal Catholic research institute. “He wants good bishops, regardless of how conservative or liberal they are.”
Click to expand...
If Pope Francis saw that the injustice lay in moderate to liberal priests being denied consideration by an ultra conservative committee, would he not be right to balance that committee so that the best bishops from all priest get equal representation?

The other possibility one should consider is that it was the the theology of an individual, but the tactics used that prompted the Pope to remove him from a position. Not everyone appreciates the American way of trial by media, or press releases where the personality becomes greater than the issue. As you said, the Church needs to operate at a higher level. Yet here we are debating a news story. Gossiping about the Pope. Taking sides. Where is this higher level you speak of?
 
twf said:
As has been noted, the announcement that a Papal Delegate will be appointed to the Order seems to render Cardinal Burke redundant in his capacity as Cardinal Patron. As Cardinal Patron he IS the Pope’s delegate to the Order, but without jurisdiction of governance. If not for the various differences between His Holiness and His Eminence, all things being equal, it would be logical to grant the Cardinal Patron temporary governance over the Order if the Vatican is determined to step in.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Burke was placed in a difficult situation. He may not want such authority, though your idea has merit. I am sure he would be highly qualified. I do not see where he bears any culpability for the current situation, as he had a role with little authority.
 
pnewton said:
That is a rather uncharitable characterization of the Holy Father. I will be surprised if this passes muster here.

You know the catechism demands we give the most charitable interpretation. I found this, said following a change in the Cardinal for Bishops.
archive.jsonline.com/news/religion/pope-francis-removes-former-la-crosse-bishop-raymond-burke-b99165146z1-236134851.html

If Pope Francis saw that the injustice lay in moderate to liberal priests being denied consideration by an ultra conservative committee, would he not be right to balance that committee so that the best bishops from all priest get equal representation?

The other possibility one should consider is that it was the the theology of an individual, but the tactics used that prompted the Pope to remove him from a position. Not everyone appreciates the American way of trial by media, or press releases where the personality becomes greater than the issue. As you said, the Church needs to operate at a higher level. Yet here we are debating a news story. Gossiping about the Pope. Taking sides. Where is this higher level you speak of?
Click to expand...
It is just what I believe, in truth, charity, moral obligation, Christian duty, you name it. I say it because I fear these actions will continue and it will demoralize and harm the Church. I would not say it if I did not sincerely believe it.
 
MODERATOR WARNING
Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see [thread=132852]Charity[/thread] for specifics, or [thread=116150]CAF rules[/thread] for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Right. “Purge” is a fair word for it. I think this will get more and more obvious, harder and harder to defend. Mercy mask is slipping. It will become much more open. I cannot see how we avoid this.
Click to expand...
Why use the word “purge”? Is Francis not entitled to choose the Cardinals he wants, like his predecessors.
 
TMC said:
Why use the word “purge”? Is Francis not entitled to choose the Cardinals he wants, like his predecessors.
Click to expand...
I agree that “purge” is way too harsh a term. The point these people are making, however, is that St. John Paul and Benedict, both identified as “conservatives”, did NOT stack the College with “conservatives”. These men appointed well known leaders of the “progressive” camp such as +Kasper and +Marx, as well as well known conservatives such as +Mueller or +Burke. +Francis, some are arguing, is ONLY appointing well known “progressives”…elevating +Tobin and +Cupich but passing over +Chaput or +Gomez.
Its completely and absolutely his prerogative. No doubt about it. But it is interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top