Priest who paid for young girls’ abortions acquitted by bishop

[guanophore]

Hi DJ, absolutely it occurs to me. As I know it would not be the first time actions or inaction by the hierarchy caused people to waver and possibly lose their Catholic faith. Once a lack of trust arises, then for some that can lead to questioning other matters. So I understand the frustration very much, though on other fronts. I just sometimes find it interesting how traditional Catholics, who I assume think of themselves as among the most faithful, too have difficulty with the Church. I will pray for you and let us all pray for another wherever we are along on faith journeys. A blessed Easter to you. Peace.

The difference lies in one’ s perception of the Church. If one accepts the Apostolic teaching, one will realize that the Church is not contaminated by the presence of wolves among the sheep. Certainly great damage is done, but the Church, being holy and undefiled, is not sullied by such sins. She is pure and unassailable, though the fallible members attached to her are prone to grievious sins.

One can have objection to wolfish shepherds without objecting to the Church, the Holy Bride of Christ.

If one does not accept this teaching, then one conflates the evildoers with the Bride for whom He died. This is what causes people to leave the Church. This is what happened to the Reformers.

Blaming the Church for the sins of her human members is like blaming Jesus for the actions of Judas. Does their evildoing change the infallible teaching that is preserved in her by the Holy Spirit? Did Judas’ betrayal invalidate the Teaching of Jesus?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The Church in Catalonia is not the topic. Please stay on topic.

Thanks

 

[JReducation]

As one who works in pro-life ministry full-time, I can tell you folks that something is not right with this story.

The Congregation for the Faith is very tough on abortion. Regardless of what the Bishop feels or does not feel. The diocesan tribunal has to submit all of its finding and court records, like any tribunal. The Bishop’s position is not relevant. What is relevant is the tribunal’s conclusion. The Judge makes the final call, not the bishop. The bishop simply reports what is reported to him. To keep things fair, bishops are not on the tribunal in their dioceses.

Then this information is sent to the CDF for confirmation. If the CDF feel that the trial was shady or needs to be reviewed, it sends it to Cardinal Burke’s office. We don’t know if they did that or not. But we know that the final conclusion by the Holy See (the CDF is part of the Holy See) is that the findings of the tribunal are not contrary to the faith. That’s what the CDF rules on. Whether he acted appropriately or not, that’s up to his bishop.

If the CDF agrees that the priest in question did not act contrary to the faith and does not incur excommunication, then my guess is that LifeNews is missing something. Either their source did not give them all the information or the writer deliberately left something out.

LifeNews writers have been known to be so passionate about their area of work that they have colored their reports. I don’t think that they do it intentionally. I believe they are good people. Sometimes, when you’re very passionate about something, you can lose sight of the bigger picture or not pay too much attention to the whole story.

The Sacred Congregation for the Faith is very thorough. If it found that the tribunal in Spain had ruled correctly, I trust the Sacred Congregation more than I trust LifeNews. Cardinal Levada and his team are not dummies. You can’t pull a fast one on them.

I repeat, the writer is missing information or is not sharing it all. I don’t know. But the conclusion is inconsistent with what normally comes out of the Holy See. Let’s not forget that the Sacred Congregation for the Faith is part of the Holy See and second only to the Apostolic See itself. Those are not fools in that office.

My suggestion . . . read these articles with caution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NeedImprovement]

As one who works in pro-life ministry full-time, I can tell you folks that something is not right with this story.

The Congregation for the Faith is very tough on abortion. Regardless of what the Bishop feels or does not feel. The diocesan tribunal has to submit all of its finding and court records, like any tribunal. The Bishop’s position is not relevant. What is relevant is the tribunal’s conclusion. The Judge makes the final call, not the bishop. The bishop simply reports what is reported to him. To keep things fair, bishops are not on the tribunal in their dioceses.

Then this information is sent to the CDF for confirmation. If the CDF feel that the trial was shady or needs to be reviewed, it sends it to Cardinal Burke’s office. We don’t know if they did that or not. But we know that the final conclusion by the Holy See (the CDF is part of the Holy See) is that the findings of the tribunal are not contrary to the faith. That’s what the CDF rules on. Whether he acted appropriately or not, that’s up to his bishop.

If the CDF agrees that the priest in question did not act contrary to the faith and does not incur excommunication, then my guess is that LifeNews is missing something. Either their source did not give them all the information or the writer deliberately left something out.

LifeNews writers have been known to be so passionate about their area of work that they have colored their reports. I don’t think that they do it intentionally. I believe they are good people. Sometimes, when you’re very passionate about something, you can lose sight of the bigger picture or not pay too much attention to the whole story.

The Sacred Congregation for the Faith is very thorough. If it found that the tribunal in Spain had ruled correctly, I trust the Sacred Congregation more than I trust LifeNews. Cardinal Levada and his team are not dummies. You can’t pull a fast one on them.

I repeat, the writer is missing information or is not sharing it all. I don’t know. But the conclusion is inconsistent with what normally comes out of the Holy See. Let’s not forget that the Sacred Congregation for the Faith is part of the Holy See and second only to the Apostolic See itself. Those are not fools in that office.

My suggestion . . . read these articles with caution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thanks for the post Br. JR, - it provides for better balance which was previously a little lacking.

In my mind, I couldn’t reconcile how the tribunal could ever condone, all situational ethics considered, this claim -
Lifesite News:

…Pousa claims that the girls whose abortions he financed, would have killed their unborn children anyway, so he decided to “commit a lesser evil to avoid another greater (evil)” and ensure that the abortion would be done in safety. A similar argument is made by…".
(…)

After a little more digging, I’ve discovered that EWTN ran similar stories sourced out of Catholic News Agency : First on March 16, 2011 saying The Archdiocese of Barcelona announced it has opened an inquiry to “verify” whether Fr. Manel Pousa incurred automatic excommunication when he paid for an abortion.

and again, only 3 days ago on April 20th, 2011 that (same souces) -

The Archdiocese of Barcelona in Spain confirmed April 18 that Father Manuel Pousa was not automatically excommunicated after admitting to paying for two abortions.

It does appear somewhat strange. The wording would seem to convey that Father Pousa did have a financial hand somewhere in that vicinity, but that only automatic excommunication was not incurred . Information as to precisely “how” this came to be, does not seem to be available at this time.

I agree with you that something seems to be missing; something isn’t “right”. Unless we were to somehow get hold of transcripts, I don’t see how we can proceed much further, except as to wait and, more importantly, pray .

 

[MontChevalier]

Sounds like this priest needs a transfer; I’m thinking there is a parish priest in the philippines needs an extra priest in his parish. I’m thinking this priest in the Philippines should straighten him out

I totally agree. Smack him a new one right in the face.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the post Br. JR, - it provides for better balance which was previously a little lacking.

In my mind, I couldn’t reconcile how the tribunal could ever condone, all situational ethics considered, this claim -

After a little more digging, I’ve discovered that EWTN ran similar stories sourced out of Catholic News Agency : First on March 16, 2011 saying The Archdiocese of Barcelona announced it has opened an inquiry to “verify” whether Fr. Manel Pousa incurred automatic excommunication when he paid for an abortion.

and again, only 3 days ago on April 20th, 2011 that (same souces) -

The Archdiocese of Barcelona in Spain confirmed April 18 that Father Manuel Pousa was not automatically excommunicated after admitting to paying for two abortions.

It does appear somewhat strange. The wording would seem to convey that Father Pousa did have a financial hand somewhere in that vicinity, but that only automatic excommunication was not incurred . Information as to precisely “how” this came to be, does not seem to be available at this time.

I agree with you that something seems to be missing; something isn’t “right”. Unless we were to somehow get hold of transcripts, I don’t see how we can proceed much further, except as to wait and, more importantly, pray .

I believe that I found the answer. It was embedded in the second article that EWTN reproduced from CNA. Watch this.

"The archdiocesan statement explained that the priest was not excommunicated "because he did not concur in the intention of the offense and was not principally complicit in the abortions that had already been decided and carried out by two girls in a very precarious economic situation."

Let’s take this one step at a time.

The question on the table was whether or not Father had incurred an excommunication. The answer by the tribunal and the Holy See is “Negative”.

To incur the excommunication you have to be culpable in some material way. The findings are that he paid the bill after the girls made their choice and the deed was done. He did not encourage the abortion, nor did he perform the abortions.

In this case, the Holy See is right. He does not incur excommunication. From there, the rest is between the bishop and the priest. The Holy See and the diocesan tribunal are out of the picture. The tribunal’s job is to determine if there has been a canonical crime. The CDF’s job is to determine if there has been a crime against the faith. On both counts, the priest is not guilty.

Now it becomes an internal issue between the priest and his bishop. It is up to the bishop to decide whether the priest should have paid the bill at all, regardless of how poor the girls are. If you observe the two articles by CNA/EWTN, we have maligned the good bishop.

The bishop had called the priest to task after reading the content of the book. It also refers to these incidents in the past tense, not as an ongoing situation. In reality, the bishop was on top of the issue. The bishop had called the priest in for a talk. The bishop had initiated the inquiry. The bishop reported the situation to the Holy See. Once he was given a verdict of “not guilty” by the diocesan tribunal, he could have closed the case. He does not have to send it to Rome for review. A lot of negatives were suggested about this bishop above. The truth is that this bishop did his job and then double checked with the Holy See. The Holy See has confirmed the verdict, “not guilty.” There is nothing else for the faithful to say. Rome has spoken.

From here on, the bishop and the priest have to talk about how he carries out his ministry in a way that he continues to serve the poor and at the same time does not do anything that is unbecoming a priest or that can be morally dangerous. But that’s internal and none of our business.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NeedImprovement]

… Just did a little more digging :

Here’s an opinion from Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters on the case from his blog. It was written March 16, 2011 and includes an April 19, 2011 update/addendum . Dr. Peters also claims that facts/info on the case are scarce :

**First thoughts on the Manel Pousa case ** .

 

[JReducation]

… Just did a little more digging :

Here’s an opinion from Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters on the case from his blog. It was written March 16, 2011 and includes an April 19, 2011 update/addendum . Dr. Peters also claims that facts/info on the case are scarce :

**First thoughts on the Manel Pousa case ** .

He’s saying the same thing that I said and I’m not a Canon Lawyer. My area is Ascetical and Mystical Theology.

Based on the information that they have, the man has not violated the faith. That does not mean that he has been on his best behavior. But that’s none of our business. Thats’ the bishop’s business, if he’s a diocesan priest. If he’s not, a diocesan, then it’s not the bishop’s business either and the bishop is done. It woiuld be the business of his community.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NeedImprovement]

He’s saying the same thing that I said and I’m not a Canon Lawyer. My area is Ascetical and Mystical Theology.

Based on the information that they have, the man has not violated the faith. That does not mean that he has been on his best behavior. But that’s none of our business. Thats’ the bishop’s business, if he’s a diocesan priest. If he’s not, a diocesan, then it’s not the bishop’s business either and the bishop is done. It woiuld be the business of his community.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF

He is risen as He said. Alleluia !

Happy Easter to you and yours Br. JR.

 

[SouthpawLink]

"The archdiocesan statement explained that the priest was not excommunicated “because he did not concur in the intention of the offense and was not principally complicit in the abortions that had already been decided and carried out by two girls in a very precarious economic situation.”

The priest paid after the abortions were already performed? What clinic allows someone to “abort now, pay later”?

The priest had no obligation to pay for it, nor do I see how it’s an act of charity. Footing the bill for the most heinous of crimes…

 

[Melchior_1]

"The archdiocesan statement explained that the priest was not excommunicated “because he did not concur in the intention of the offense and was not principally complicit in the abortions that had already been decided and carried out by two girls in a very precarious economic situation.”

The priest paid after the abortions were already performed? What clinic allows someone to “abort now, pay later”?

The priest had no obligation to pay for it, nor do I see how it’s an act of charity. Footing the bill for the most heinous of crimes…

Would you have the girls starve to death?

Or perhaps the places where they had the abortions procured would send…certain people to collect payments?

We don’t know the whole situation. This was already shown when Brother JR found an article which shows he didn’t pay for the abortions before the abortions, which is what everyone already thought.

If they didn’t have the money after the fact they didn’t have the money. Scrounging up the money to pay off the abortion may prevent them from getting materials they needed to live. We don’t know the whole situation, so maybe we should show come compassion and mercy towards others The Feast of the Divine Mercy is this Sunday after all…

 

[JReducation]

"The archdiocesan statement explained that the priest was not excommunicated “because he did not concur in the intention of the offense and was not principally complicit in the abortions that had already been decided and carried out by two girls in a very precarious economic situation.”

The priest paid after the abortions were already performed? What clinic allows someone to “abort now, pay later”?

The priest had no obligation to pay for it, nor do I see how it’s an act of charity. Footing the bill for the most heinous of crimes…

All we know is that the girls were very poor and that Father paid after the fact. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, this is not a canonical issue. Depending on the details, it may be a disciplinary issue between the priest and his superiors a the local level. If he’s a diocesan priest, a bishop cannot tell a secular priest, deacon or his auxiliary bishop how to use his money. The only thing that a bishop can do is to command that funds from the ministry or the parish not be used for X, Y and Z. Bishops do not have that kind of authority over priests who are not in vows.

If a priest is in vows, then he is a consecrated religious. In that case, since there is no canonical violation, the bishop is out of the picture. Bishops can’t penalize or correct members of religious communities or secular orders. The major superior can set parameters on the use of money, not even the local superior can do this as long as the money is not being used for himself. The local superior guards the vow of poverty, not the funds that go into ministry.

Every act and behavior has a different authority and a different degree of gravity. Each authority level takes care of its area. As far as the Holy See is concerned, they are out of the picture as soon as it is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you have not violated canon law.

I think that in these cases, it’s upsetting, because most people don’t know that diocesan priests are secular men. The Church only has authority over them in canonical matters. The bishop has authority over them in matters pertaining to ministry. No one can intervene in their private activities until a diocesan or canonical rule is violated.

About 30% of the priests in the Latin Church are consecrated religious. They make up about 60% if religious men. There too you have the principle of subsidiarity and pontifical rights. The principle of subsidiarity says that if there is no violation of canon law, the major superior deals with the matter, not bishop nor the Holy See. Pontifical rights protects all members of religious and secular orders that have been granted pontifical status from all interference from bishops and laity, but also guarantees that bishops and laity will support the work of the orders.

Where does that leave a case like this? Who ever is the person in authority, be it a bishop or a superior, has to decide whether the priest violated a local regulation. That person may find that he priest did not violate any regulation, because no regulation existed. It’s like the proverbial stop sign. No one thinks about it until there is an accident on the corner. No one would think about a priest paying someone’s abortion bill. Then there is one final possibility, the girls may have paid the bill at the clinic and not had money left for food and other needs. Father gives them the amount that they spent. Who knows? At this point, it’s not our business. The priest has rights that we cannot violate. Church law is very clear that you cannot violate someone’s rights in order to achieve a good. You have to find another way to achieve the desired good.

The good thing is that everyone who thought that the bishop was not doing his job or that the Spanish bishops were not on the job, have been mistaken. The articles above make two points very clear: 1) Spain has an abundance of very good Canon Lawyers, some of the best in the world, second only to the USA and 2) the bishop ran his own investigation and then submitted his findings to the Holy See for their review. The law does not require him to do this. If the verdict comes back, not guilty, the bishop can drop the case. Obviously, the bishop wanted an opinion from outside of his diocese.

Have a blessed Easter week and may the Lord fill all of us with his mercy.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[excubitor]

So this priest and the Cardinal who acquitted him are in “full communion” with the Church? But Society priests are not? It would be ok to assist at a Mass said by Fr. Manel Pousa, but not at that of a Society priest? I just want to understand. Thanks!

It is permissible to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a society mass, but it is not OK to attend regularly because you may absorb the schismatic mentality of the society.
Also confessions of the society are invalid and illicit, so there is a high chance that prolonged attendance at society masses could result in people taking holy communion whilst in a state of mortal sin. Bad as the allegations against this priest are, they are insignificant compared to the dangers posed to many souls by the SSPX.

I will hasten to add that we are all internet juries here.
Did we hear the case in great detail as presented from all angles? Whilst on the face of it I agree that aiding an abortion should receive excommunication; I am certainly not going to elevate my own judgments on a specific case above that of the church authorities that heard this case and made their considered judgments in the matter.

 

[JReducation]

So this priest and the Cardinal who acquitted him are in “full communion” with the Church? But Society priests are not? It would be ok to assist at a Mass said by Fr. Manel Pousa, but not at that of a Society priest? I just want to understand. Thanks!

The SSPX question:

Did Archbishop Lefebvre and the newly ordained SSPX bishops violate canon law?

The Holy See’s answer:

Guilty

The Fr. Pousa question:

Did Fr. Pousa violate canon law?

The Holy See’s answer:

Not Guilty

There is nothing more for us to discuss or to debate, because the people who have the power and the authority have spoken and they are not interested in what we think. They are interested in what the law says.

From this point forward, as I said above, it’s between Fr. Pousa and his immediate superior to figure out the future.

Have a week filled with God’s mercy and Easter joy!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mattkubes]

The SSPX question:
Did Archbishop Lefebvre and the newly ordained SSPX bishops violate canon law?
The Holy See’s answer:
Guilty

The Fr. Pousa question:
Did Fr. Pousa violate canon law?
The Holy See’s answer:
Not Guilty

What a sad state of affairs.

 

[JReducation]

What a sad state of affairs.

We have to remember that Canon Law is still law, even though it’s the law of the Latin Church. Law does not deal with feelings, opinions or even speculations. Law is very concrete. It has to be. The moment that law becomes abstract or subject to feelings and opinions, then you have chaos.

That’s why Canon Law and the Canons of for the Oriental Churches are the only Catholic documents where the word “love” is never found. It is deliberately avoided to ensure that the law is cold, factual and to the point. The purpose of the law is to govern, nothing else. All other services are provided through other ministries and offices in the Church.

When there is a debate or a question as to whether the law was violated or not and there is an impasse, it falls on the Holy Father to make the call. Also, when the law is used in a way that the Holy Father did not anticipate at the time that he approved and promulgate it, he can simply say, “The law does not apply to you or does not apply in this case” and he proceeds to make law on the spot. That comes with his power to bind and unbind.

I do not envy Canon Lawyers or the justices in the ecclesial tribunals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[excubitor]

What a sad state of affairs.

Point being. It’s the Holy See giving the answer. Notice that word Holy? If the Holy See got it wrong then there is only one court of appeal, and that is at the throne of heaven with Christ himself head of the church.
If we have a complaint with the Holy See, then we have no legitimate recourse except to pray in our private prayers to Christ himself for his judgment. Making negative comments and innuendos against the Holy See is inappropriate if not divisive.
There is a point where “resisting to your face” spills over into outright rebellion.
The SSPX crossed that line a long time ago, let’s beware lest any of us should fall into the same trap.

 

[mattkubes]

Point being. It’s the Holy See giving the answer. Notice that word Holy? If the Holy See got it wrong then there is only one court of appeal, and that is at the throne of heaven with Christ himself head of the church.

Well not quite. Canon Law is not immutable (we call it the 1983 Code for a reason). But I see your point, and I agree.

If we have a complaint with the Holy See, then we have no legitimate recourse except to pray in our private prayers to Christ himself for his judgment. Making negative comments and innuendos against the Holy See is inappropriate if not divisive.

Agreed. Did you interpret some sort of innuendo in my 7-word post?

There is a point where “resisting to your face” spills over into outright rebellion.
The SSPX crossed that line a long time ago, let’s beware lest any of us should fall into the same trap.

I’ve never set foot inside an SSPX chapel, but I disagree that they crossed the line of outright rebellion. The Protestant Reformation? That was outright rebellion. The First Act of Supremacy? That was outright rebellion. Discussions with the SSPX have been described as an internal matter, and I tend to accept such a description.