Swiss Court Says Labor Law Forbids Bishop from Removing Dissident Priest from Parish

  • Thread starter Thread starter SILVERNAME
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SILVERNAME

Guest
Priest repudiated essential Catholic teachings on marriage and homosexuality and criticized Vatican

By Peter J. Smith

ZURICH, September 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Swiss court has ruled that a Catholic bishop has no authority to remove a rebel priest from his parish post under Switzerland’s labour laws.

The Basel Country cantonal court decided that Father Franz Sabo will remain at the parish of Röschenz as a parish administrator, despite the countervailing orders from Basel Bishop Kurt Koch.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07090707.html
 
So much for that separation of church and state nonsense, these liberal lunatics and secularist fanatics always carp.

Looks like switserland and its communist/socialist labor laws is looking more and more like the old soviet union.
 
SILVERNAME said:
So much for that separation of church and state nonsense, these liberal lunatics and secularist fanatics always carp.

Looks like switserland and its communist/socialist labor laws is looking more and more like the old soviet union.
Click to expand...
Switzerland has no seperation of church and state. The US is the only country that I know of which has that rule in effect even though there is no such rule/law in the constitution. It was made up by the courts.

Franz Sabo will be judged by God. As someone who was trained as a priest he should know better.
 
SILVERNAME said:
Priest repudiated essential Catholic teachings on marriage and homosexuality and criticized Vatican

By Peter J. Smith

ZURICH, September 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Swiss court has ruled that a Catholic bishop has no authority to remove a rebel priest from his parish post under Switzerland’s labour laws.

The Basel Country cantonal court decided that Father Franz Sabo will remain at the parish of Röschenz as a parish administrator, despite the countervailing orders from Basel Bishop Kurt Koch.

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07090707.html
Click to expand...
Can’t F. Sabo be assigned to sit quietly in a chair, with pay, in a dark-ish room for the remainder of his “time”, until he decides he’d rather like to do something else?

Just curious. 🙂

Leftists get into everything, don’t they,… just like mildew?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
Lance said:
Switzerland has no seperation of church and state. The US is the only country that I know of which has that rule in effect even though there is no such rule/law in the constitution. It was made up by the courts.

Franz Sabo will be judged by God. As someone who was trained as a priest he should know better.
Click to expand...
Digitonomy said:
Australia appears to have a separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
I think there are a couple of other countries where there is no government connection to or endorsement of a particular religion. What about the Netherlands?

Canada does not have true separation as there is government involvement in Catholic Schools there.

There are other countries that officially try to keep a wall between civil and religious matters, but are not very good at it. Turkey comes to mind in this category. I suppose Canada may as well. 🤷

Perhaps the residents of other countries on this board can help us poor dumb Americans understand the relationship between civil and religious matters in your countries. 😃
 
why doesn’t the church in switzerland sell the church and surrounding land, that should get rid of him.
 
why doesn’t the Church send the dissident priest back to Rome for further education? I didn’t think Preists could be “fired”; laicized or defrocked perhaps, but fired? even with laicization there is canon law involved and it’s no simple matter…
 
Keikiolu said:
Can’t F. Sabo be assigned to sit quietly in a chair, with pay, in a dark-ish room for the remainder of his “time”, until he decides he’d rather like to do something else?

Just curious. 🙂

Leftists get into everything, don’t they,… just like mildew?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
Click to expand...
That was my thought too. Keep him there but remove his faculties to say Mass, hear Confessions or to preach - all of which require permission from the Bishop. Let him visit the nursing homes, the prisons and take Communion to those in the hospitals. That should keep him busy and relatively out of trouble.
 
If there’s a job contract, the labour law of the country applies. If the law actually applies, the judges may have no law to base a different ruling on. They seem to be concentrating on the administrative aspect and if the priest has a civil contract… you get the idea. Just wonder if they would defend in the same way a plain Joe the Property Administrator fired for e.g. anti-gay statements.

On the other hand, the courts can’t forbid canon law penalties which may apply. Not to mention that the bishop’s decision is canonically valid (so long as it is, that is ;)) with all the consequences of it.

Rulings like this one are actually the consequence of a wrongly understood separation of church and state, not the absence of it. A ruling like that is not because the state wants to force pro-gay priests into parishes but because it sees no difference between employing a priest and employing a cook or cleaner in the parish.
 
Corki said:
That was my thought too. Keep him there but remove his faculties to say Mass, hear Confessions or to preach - all of which require permission from the Bishop. Let him visit the nursing homes, the prisons and take Communion to those in the hospitals. That should keep him busy and relatively out of trouble.
Click to expand...
This may be a solution in some countries. However, I think in most nations with well-developed labor law, you’ll find that limitations on employers in changing workers’ job duties, or other such on-the-job harassment or discrimination resemble limitations on firing. For instance, in the US you can’t hire a person as a marketing executive, then restrict their duties to fetching the coffee once they convert to Catholicism.
 
Digitonomy said:
This may be a solution in some countries. However, I think in most nations with well-developed labor law, you’ll find that limitations on employers in changing workers’ job duties, or other such on-the-job harassment or discrimination resemble limitations on firing. For instance, in the US you can’t hire a person as a marketing executive, then restrict their duties to fetching the coffee once they convert to Catholicism.
Click to expand...
That’s because fetching coffee is not one of the usual duties of a marketing exec. The duties I listed are all proper to the office of a priest - just restrict him from doing other duties where he can do harm.

BTW, in most states (48 out of 50 - the “at will” states) in the US, you can certainly restrict a marketing executive to fetching the coffee as long as you are not a government employer. If the person quits, however, the Unemployment Office will treat it as a lay-off rather than a voluntary quit.
 
Corki said:
BTW, in most states (48 out of 50 - the “at will” states) in the US, you can certainly restrict a marketing executive to fetching the coffee as long as you are not a government employer.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that is true - I think if you are a protected class (in my example, based on religion) you cannot be snubbed or discriminated against on that basis, even in the assigning of duties. It’s obviously a bit harder to prove than firing. However, you may be right and I may be overstating the situation - I’ll check with someone who knows the law a bit better.
 
Digitonomy said:
I don’t believe that is true - I think if you are a protected class (in my example, based on religion) you cannot be snubbed or discriminated against on that basis, even in the assigning of duties. It’s obviously a bit harder to prove than firing. However, you may be right and I may be overstating the situation - I’ll check with someone who knows the law a bit better.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed the last few words in your example. :o

But in the OP, the priest isn’t in a protected class, even if you use US standards for equal opportunity. He is a Catholic male in a profession that is 100% made up of Catholic males. 🙂
 
Corki said:
Sorry, I missed the last few words in your example. :o

But in the OP, the priest isn’t in a protected class, even if you use US standards for equal opportunity.
Click to expand...
If we use US standards, the priest can be removed from his post and we don’t need to restrict him to minimal duties. My point was that if the employer is prohibited by law from firing the employee, the employer will often be similarly prohibited from taking other adverse action against the employee. Whether that applies in Switzerland, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
 
Appointing priests to parishes is just one area that a bisho must have complete control in. In my diocese, priests are generally assigned for 6 years then moved to another parish. On occasion, a priest may be able to serve another six year term at a parish but 12 years is about the limits (if I understand my archdiocese policies properly).

This Swiss court has just taken away this power from the ordinary. The state is clearly interfering with internal Church affairs. I hope this ruling can be appealed.
 
rpp said:
Appointing priests to parishes is just one area that a bisho must have complete control in. In my diocese, priests are generally assigned for 6 years then moved to another parish. On occasion, a priest may be able to serve another six year term at a parish but 12 years is about the limits (if I understand my archdiocese policies properly).

This Swiss court has just taken away this power from the ordinary. The state is clearly interfering with internal Church affairs. I hope this ruling can be appealed.
Click to expand...
Better yet, ignored.
 
This is a very serious matter. In communist countries the state has sought to control the Church in such ways. I hope this one can be fought.
 
The priest should be suspended ad divinis for filing the civil suit in the first place. His proper appeal is to the Holy See of Rome, not the civil courts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top