Removing Bishops for Not Removing Priests

[patricius79]

Please forgive me as there are probably articles on this but I’ve been unable to find them.

Perhaps someone could simply direct me to them, as long as they specifically answer my question, which is this:

Why doesn’t the Church remove from office any Bishop that allowed a priest with a credible allegation of sex abuse against them to continue in ministry?

I’m not suggesting that such a Bishop should be removed from priestly ministry, but simply from his episcopal office.

I’m thinking of Cardinal Mahoney for example. (If I remember right, he allowed priests known to have abused one or more child to continue in ministry. Please correct me if I’m wrong)

I realize I may be speaking in great ignorance, and I have no intention of condemning or feeling superior to any of these men, but I’m asking a question.

If I’m going about investigating this issue the wrong way, please also let me know, as I don’t want to clutter the board with questions that have been answered a hundred times.

 

[Regina_Love]

It was my understanding that our Pope Benedict Emerituis was removing on average 3 Bishops per month. He asked for their resignations, and appointed new Bishops.

 

[mdgspencer]

The news has recently come out that Pope Benedict removed several bishops from office every month. One reason a bishop was removed was because “his discipline was a disaster.” I presume that would often refer to failure to deal properly with priests guilty of sexual abuse and also refusal to deal with wayward priests in other matters, including out-of-line liturgies. According to this report, nearly all these bishops quit voluntarily when they were told the Pope wanted them to resign for the good of the Church, realizing their disaster.
see www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=7089
I’m not surprised that you have not found such articles. The linked article is a revelation in the matter.

 

[brb3]

The news has recently come out that Pope Benedict removed several bishops from office every month. One reason a bishop was removed was because “his discipline was a disaster.” I presume that would often refer to failure to deal properly with priests guilty of sexual abuse and also refusal to deal with wayward priests in other matters, including out-of-line liturgies. According to this report, nearly all these bishops quit voluntarily when they were told the Pope wanted them to resign for the good of the Church, realizing their disaster.
see www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/World.php?id=7089
I’m not surprised that you have not found such articles. The linked article is a revelation in the matter.

Wow …who knew ?
But, its a recent article …its new news …& great news !!

 

[patricius79]

It was my understanding that our Pope Benedict Emerituis was removing on average 3 Bishops per month. He asked for their resignations, and appointed new Bishops.

thank you all for your responses. that is heartening.

this article refers to general incompetence/ indiscipline in a diocese

but even if, say, a Bishop had good overall discipline and accounts in his diocese, would it make sense for the Church to extend their zero tolerance policy to any Bishop who has ever–to change it a bit–not reported to authorities a priest who has a credible allegation of sex abuse? (likewise if he reported but allowed a priest to remain in ministry)

by zero tolerance I don’t necessarily mean removing the Bishop from priestly ministry but only from serving as a Bishop

for one thing, I think this would better satisfy victims, would it not?

 

[brb3]

thank you all for your responses. that is heartening.

this article refers to general incompetence/ indiscipline in a diocese

but even if, say, a Bishop had good overall discipline and accounts in his diocese, would it make sense for the Church to extend their zero tolerance policy to any Bishop who has ever–to change it a bit–not reported to authorities a priest who has a credible allegation of sex abuse? (likewise if he reported but allowed a priest to remain in ministry)

by zero tolerance I don’t necessarily mean removing the Bishop from priestly ministry but only from serving as a Bishop

for one thing, I think this would better satisfy victims, would it not?

Yes…zero tolerance !! If I learn of another Bishop cover-up, delayed several year hence, with big mony payouts …our new Pope will be tarnished !! Within 6 months …every bad priest or bishop needs to be dealt with & replaced, if guilty.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Yes…zero tolerance !! If I learn of another Bishop cover-up, delayed several year hence, with big mony payouts …

I would agree fully for modern instances. But many of the priest-abuse crimes happened many years ago, in the sixties and early seventies. The nature of pedophilia was not very well understood. In most cases, offending priests were sent to treatment programs, which were assumed to be effective. It is in the Church’s nature to try to rehabilitate a sinner, not to condemn him outright.

In those days, SCIENCE was highly revered. For example, it was thought that laboratories could produce “baby formula” which was superior to mother’s milk. Nursing mothers were scorned (my mother told me that I never tasted her milk - upon her doctor’s insistence, I was fed nothing but formula). This was the era when we soared into space, and “science” seemed to hold the answer to every problem.

“Science” told us that mental disorders could be cured. Bishops believed it (just like my mother believed her doctor). They sent priests to the scientists to cure them, and then assigned them to another parish.

The Bishops were mistaken in trusting “science” to cure their pedophile priests. But (with a few exceptions) they did not act with malice or incompetence, any more than my mother (or her doctor) did.

 

[Miriam1947]

I would agree fully for modern instances. But many of the priest-abuse crimes happened many years ago, in the sixties and early seventies. **The nature of pedophilia was not very well understood. ** In most cases, offending priests were sent to treatment programs, which were assumed to be effective. It is in the Church’s nature to try to rehabilitate a sinner, not to condemn him outright.

In those days, SCIENCE was highly revered. For example, it was thought that laboratories could produce “baby formula” which was superior to mother’s milk. Nursing mothers were scorned (my mother told me that I never tasted her milk - upon her doctor’s insistence, I was fed nothing but formula). This was the era when we soared into space, and “science” seemed to hold the answer to every problem.

“Science” told us that mental disorders could be cured. Bishops believed it (just like my mother believed her doctor). They sent priests to the scientists to cure them, and then assigned them to another parish.

The Bishops were mistaken in trusting “science” to cure their pedophile priests. But (with a few exceptions) they did not act with malice or incompetence, any more than my mother (or her doctor) did.

It was not generally true pedophilia because these were not little children, they were mostly male adolescents.

These were homosexual priests and is probably the major reason that Pope Benedict XVI disallowed homosexuals into the priesthood.