Scandal strikes at ancient Order of Malta over ex-chancellor

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The term “sovereignty” in a purely temporal or Earthly sense wouldn’t necessarily override the Pope’s ability to become involved in internal matters if it is part of his spiritual jurisdiction. For example, if the Order became Protestant (only hypothetically!) the Pope could make official declarations disavowing the Order their Catholic identity.

However, the Order’s administrative independence is in fact based on a Papal Bull issued in 1113 by Pope Paschal II which is effective “in perpetuity”. There doesn’t seem to be an easily accessible version available in English, but here’s an article about it after the recent 900 year anniversary of the Order:

orderofmaltausawestern.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121:the-900th-anniversary-of-pie-postulatio-voluntatis&catid=38&Itemid=106

The Cardinal attached to the order would therefore seem to be the equivalent of a chaplain or spiritual advisor for the order, rather than someone who is expected to control or direct the administrative affairs. That right lies with the Grand Master, who is free to make administrative decisions as he sees fit. If he chose to consult the Cardinal on whether or not “Rome” supported the removal of his Chancellor, that is his prerogative, but whether or not Rome supports his decisions is not necessarily material to his choice. We could argue the prudence or consequences of an administrative decision for or against “Rome’s wishes”, but the legal fact of his sovereignty seems to be beyond question.

The Grand Master is effectively a President/Head of State and his Chancellor (formerly von Boeselager until his dismissal) is the equivalent of a Prime Minister/Head of Government. There are a number of states whose Presidents have the ability to appoint a Prime Minister without having to hold an election. For example, this is exactly what happens in France.
 
However Von Boeselager has said he was asked, and then ordered to resign Dec. 6 during a meeting with Burke and the order’s leader, who suggested that the resignation was “in accordance with the wishes of the Holy See.” He said he subsequently learned that the Holy See had made no such request.

Also of note is that an Order of Malta project that included the distribution of condoms in Myanmar didn’t eventually end until after the Vatican’s doctrine office intervened.

The Order of Malta is sovereign however it was established by a Papal Bull, so I suppose another Papal Bull could dissolve it. At least as a Roman Catholic lay religious order.

So as they say, “the relationship is complicated.”

If I were the Holy Father I would want someone to look into what’s what as well.
 
gilliam said:
The Grand Master is invoking the order’s soverinity and saying that it is an internal affair and the Vatican has no grounds to investigate the decision. However the relationship the Order has with the Vatican is a bit more complicated than that.

In its statement, the Knights of Malta said the pope’s decision to appoint a commission to investigate von Boeselager’s replacement was a result of a misunderstanding with the Vatican’s secretariat of state.

The Order of Malta has many trappings of a sovereign state, issuing its own stamps, passports and license plates and holding diplomatic relations with 106 states, the Holy See included.

The Holy See, however, has a unique relationship with the order since the pope appoints a cardinal to “promote the spiritual interests” of the order and its relationship with the Vatican.

Francis appointed Burke to that position in 2014.

Kurt Martens, professor of canon law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, says the pope’s investigation was complicated, given the sovereign nature of both the order and the Holy See under international law.

“The way it has been perceived, it’s as if they’re looking into the order, and that’s why there is the backlash from the order,” he said in a phone interview.

altoonamirror.com/uncategorized/2016/12/knights-of-malta-to-francis-stay-out-of-our-internal-affairs/
Click to expand...
This AP story by Nicole Winfield is not new. It appeared in the Washington Post in a longer form on Dec 24.
washingtonpost.com/national/religion/knights-of-malta-to-pope-stay-out-of-our-internal-affairs/2016/12/24/d4819bac-c9af-11e6-acda-59924caa2450_story.html?utm_term=.3e8dd54b5ed8
 
gilliam said:
If I were the Holy Father I would want someone to look into what’s what as well.
Click to expand...
I can understand the Pope wanting to look into it to verify what happened. It’s an open secret that he and Cardinal Burke have disagreements. So to engage a group to go on a fact-finding mission is understandable. But that group or the Pope wouldn’t have the authority to effect any administrative changes or reverse the removal of Von Boeselager. That would be an internal matter for the Order.

I just worry that this is the equivalent of kicking a hornet’s nest. The secular media is running with the narrative that this is a conflict between the Pope and the Order or that it’s a political action against Cardinal Burke. Neither of which is “good PR” for the Pope, the Order or the Catholic Church. It also sustains the public attention on the scandal of the Order having distributed Condoms. Whilst I’m not trying to suggest a coverup of that fact would be better, it would be best if the issue were corrected using the proper means rather than a “trial by secular media” in which the secular media has a vested interest in using the situation to attack the Church or present ideologies which contradict the Church’s moral teaching.
 
No one is saying, at least I can’t find it, that the Holy Father will do anything. He may simply ask Cardinal Burke to privately communicate to officers in the Order that after looking into the situation, the Vatican did not threaten the Order in any way. He may also provide a letter to the Grand Master to that effect. And leave it at that.

A feud between Cardinal Burke and the Holy Father sells papers and causes clicks (look at how many posts here at CAF are about such a supposed feud, ) and I think for whatever reasons, Cardinal Burke likes to fan the flames in the press. But I don’t see anything coming from the Vatican that would cause one to think that the Holy Father has any interest in doing so.
 
Stat_Crux said:
I can understand the Pope wanting to look into it to verify what happened. It’s an open secret that he and Cardinal Burke have disagreements. So to engage a group to go on a fact-finding mission is understandable. But that group or the Pope wouldn’t have the authority to effect any administrative changes or reverse the removal of Von Boeselager. That would be an internal matter for the Order.
Click to expand...
How will a fact-finding mission proceed without the cooperation of the Order? And anyway, what’s the point of investigating “the process” if you can’t make any changes?
 
mrdrifter said:
How will a fact-finding mission proceed without the cooperation of the Order? And anyway, what’s the point of investigating “the process” if you can’t make any changes?
Click to expand...
Should they dare refuse to cooperate with the papal commission, there are a number of mechanisms that can be implemented to compel compliance.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Should they dare refuse to cooperate with the papal commission, there are a number of mechanisms that can be implemented to compel compliance.
Click to expand...
Burke seems to think the Vatican could seize their assets.
 
I believe that’s only what someone claims Cardinal Burke said, regarding the Pope seizing the order’s assets.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Should they dare refuse to cooperate with the papal commission, there are a number of mechanisms that can be implemented to compel compliance.
Click to expand...
Seems the Sovereign Order of Malta has in fact already refused to cooperate with the papal commission, having rejected it and its terms of reference as “unacceptable”. Anyone hear of “mechanisms” implemented in response? Maybe there won’t be any.
 
robertmidwest said:
Burke seems to think the Vatican could seize their assets.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that this is true. One of the things which is explicitly protected by Pie postulatio voluntatis (the original Papal Bull from 1113) is the right and title to all of the Order’s assets. So the idea of the Vatican seizing them would be an enormous scandal; perhaps bigger than the removal of the Grand Chancellor in the first place.

Like so much of this situation, there’s a lot of hearsay and rumour. I’m not certain we’ll know anything definitively until the dust has settled. Even then we may never really know for certain.
 
mrdrifter said:
Seems the Sovereign Order of Malta has in fact already refused to cooperate with the papal commission, having rejected it and its terms of reference as “unacceptable”. Anyone hear of “mechanisms” implemented in response? Maybe there won’t be any.
Click to expand...
No, what is written is not correct.

His Most Eminent Highness, in a letter, explained the reasons why he found the Holy See’s proceeding not to be acceptable. But that decision, ultimately, does not rest with him. As he concluded the letter, “He assured the Holy Father of his filial devotion and asked the Pontiff for the Apostolic Blessing.”

Knights of Justice, that is the First Class and the level of which we are speaking, are vowed Religious and so aspects of these matter assuredly are well within the Holy Father’s reach. The commission members are superbly chosen and they are also eminently capable for the task entrusted to them by the Holy See. The Prince and Grand Master may have various occasions in the next weeks and months to give witness to his filial devotion…which is his obligation.

So, yes, there are mechanisms for compliance…several.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
No, what is written is not correct.

His Most Eminent Highness, in a letter, explained the reasons why he found the Holy See’s proceeding not to be acceptable. But that decision, ultimately, does not rest with him. As he concluded the letter, “He assured the Holy Father of his filial devotion and asked the Pontiff for the Apostolic Blessing.”

Knights of Justice, that is the First Class and the level of which we are speaking, are vowed Religious and so aspects of these matter assuredly are well within the Holy Father’s reach. The commission members are superbly chosen and they are also eminently capable for the task entrusted to them by the Holy See. The Prince and Grand Master may have various occasions in the next weeks and months to give witness to his filial devotion…which is his obligation.

So, yes, there are mechanisms for compliance…several.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Still, as reflected in their public statement, the Grand Magistry of the Sovereign Order of Malta has evidently decided to refuse to cooperate with the papal commission, having rejected it and its terms of reference as “unacceptable”.
 
gilliam said:
The Holy See, however, has a unique relationship with the order since the pope appoints a cardinal to “promote the spiritual interests” of the order and its relationship with the Vatican.

Francis appointed Burke to that position in 2014.

Kurt Martens, professor of canon law at The Catholic University of America in Washington, says the pope’s investigation was complicated, given the sovereign nature of both the order and the Holy See under international law.

“The way it has been perceived, it’s as if they’re looking into the order, and that’s why there is the backlash from the order,” he said in a phone interview.

altoonamirror.com/uncategorized/2016/12/knights-of-malta-to-francis-stay-out-of-our-internal-affairs/[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
  • It is perceived as an unwelcome investigation because of the way the Vatican has handled this, and other recent events involving Cardinal Burke. The Vatican might have kept this inquiry private. Or they could have commended the Order for affirming the Church’s prolife position, perhaps a little tardily, under this fairly new Cardinal Protector. The Vatican might have said “we need to look at other Catholic institutions or religious orders that have condoned or compromised the Church’s teaching on prolife.”
But nothing like that was done. The Vatican didn’t *exactly *label the firing a “scandal” but did nothing to correct that commonly applied impression, in the same media that have been “scrutinizing” Cardinal Burke. What is it called if I make a statement that I know will be misinterpreted or spinned to do someone harm? Am I under any obligation to affirm the truth?

The sad reality is that the Vatican’s communications credibility has been badly damaged in the past year, so even if there really is dung under that snowpile, nobody will benefit from the Vatican’s findings. Liberals will hail the news, that anything to do with Cardinal Burke is bad. Conservatives will say “of course, we knew that was coming, what did you expect?” Those who, like myself, keep defending the Vatican in its battles, are starting to wonder out loud, why ****these ****particular battles?

Various “Friends of the pope” will hold press conferences, do media blitzes to explain the meaning of this. Some priests and laity connected to the SSPX, who were considering a move to full communion with Rome, may postpone or cancel that decision.
 
commenter said:
  • It is perceived as an unwelcome investigation because of the way the Vatican has handled this, and other recent events involving Cardinal Burke. The Vatican might have kept this inquiry private. Or they could have commended the Order for affirming the Church’s prolife position, perhaps a little tardily, under this fairly new Cardinal Protector. The Vatican might have said “we need to look at other Catholic institutions or religious orders that have condoned or compromised the Church’s teaching on prolife.”
Click to expand...
Does protecting women who are forced into slavery count as prolife?
 
robertmidwest said:
Does protecting women who are forced into slavery count as prolife?
Click to expand...
Seems like a heroic deed fit for a Knight! But does keeping sex slaves free of disease, making them even more sought-after as prostitutes, count as protecting women?
 
commenter said:
  • It is perceived as an unwelcome investigation because of the way the Vatican has handled this, and other recent events involving Cardinal Burke. The Vatican might have kept this inquiry private. Or they could have commended the Order for affirming the Church’s prolife position, perhaps a little tardily, under this fairly new Cardinal Protector. The Vatican might have said “we need to look at other Catholic institutions or religious orders that have condoned or compromised the Church’s teaching on prolife.”
But nothing like that was done. The Vatican didn’t *exactly *label the firing a “scandal” but did nothing to correct that commonly applied impression, in the same media that have been “scrutinizing” Cardinal Burke. What is it called if I make a statement that I know will be misinterpreted or spinned to do someone harm? Am I under any obligation to affirm the truth?

The sad reality is that the Vatican’s communications credibility has been badly damaged in the past year, so even if there really is dung under that snowpile, nobody will benefit from the Vatican’s findings. Liberals will hail the news, that anything to do with Cardinal Burke is bad. Conservatives will say “of course, we knew that was coming, what did you expect?” Those who, like myself, keep defending the Vatican in its battles, are starting to wonder out loud, why ****these ****particular battles?

Various “Friends of the pope” will hold press conferences, do media blitzes to explain the meaning of this. Some priests and laity connected to the SSPX, who were considering a move to full communion with Rome, may postpone or cancel that decision.
Click to expand...
Your characterisation of these matters is very far from the reality of what is and why it is.

Fortunately, the very capable Nuncio heading the ad hoc papal commission together with the former rector of the Gregorian University and highly placed members of the Order, including the Sovereign Council, will be able to assist the Holy Father through their work so that His Holiness, in turn, is able to provide help to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta…whose raison d’etre, for those who have embraced the vocation of Knights of Justice, are to be vowed Religious and Knights for the Pope.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
No, what is written is not correct.

His Most Eminent Highness, in a letter, explained the reasons why he found the Holy See’s proceeding not to be acceptable. But that decision, ultimately, does not rest with him. As he concluded the letter, “He assured the Holy Father of his filial devotion and asked the Pontiff for the Apostolic Blessing.”

Knights of Justice, that is the First Class and the level of which we are speaking, are vowed Religious and so aspects of these matter assuredly are well within the Holy Father’s reach. The commission members are superbly chosen and they are also eminently capable for the task entrusted to them by the Holy See. The Prince and Grand Master may have various occasions in the next weeks and months to give witness to his filial devotion…which is his obligation.

So, yes, there are mechanisms for compliance…several.
Click to expand...
Are you a member of the Sovereign Order of Malta?

I think a more comparison would be the Vatican investigating the US Election at the request of Tim Kaine. When this Order has its own passports we are not dealing with an ordinary religious order but something completely different.

There is the Papal Bull.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top