R
Rascalking
Guest
I totally agree with that, if they’re not guilty.
- Status
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Thanks, it is always been my honor to serve. Both God, and our country.
Unfortunately, the Church is in a no win situation here. No matter how the Church handles things, someone, somewhere is going to be unhappy.
People are always going to say. “Why didn’t you do something sooner.” or “Why did you react so harshly”. Either way, the Church just can’t win in some people’s eyes.
B
baylee
Guest
And was that the case here? Because I have to tell ya, my first reaction was that this was exactly what happened…but the title of the article makes it seem like the Church was doing something secretive and offensive…you know, because that’s all our Church does these days.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Something tells me if it was false the reinstatement wouldn’t have been done quietly but would have been a big event i.e. “Priests’ names cleared, returned to duty! Praise God a victory for his one true church!”
That sorta thing, I am sure it would have been all over the Catholic news outlets.
T
Teelynn
Guest
I’m not so sure about that. First of all, that’s not how the Church opperates. Second of all, the Church heirarchy has a few more brains than that I do believe. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that ANY publicity at all would have been misconstrued by the media to make it look like these priests were true pedophiles being returned to duty. And lastly but not least, wouldn’t these men be serving time for this? Many of them did, and did NOT return to duty once time served. So me thinks this to be highly unlikely.
J
JReducation
Guest
I can speak to the statement about religious orders. What the lawyers either don’t know, which I doubt, or have not said is that religious orders were not part of the agreement, because religious are not under the jurisdiction of bishops. Religious are under the jurisdiction of major superiors who have the same power as do bishops. Major superiors do not co-sign agreements that are designed to govern the secular clergy nor do bishops co-sign agreements that are designed to govern religious.
However, they have not stated the other important detail. When a major superior assigns a religious to work in a diocese, that religious is bound by the rules of the local bishop in all matters that pertain to his work in that diocese. If an incident occcurs while the religious in on duty in a diocese, it is reported to the bishop and the bishop has the legal obligation to report it to the major superior and the right to suspend that individual’s ministry in his diocese, if the bishop believes that there is basis to do so. Even if the bishop does not feel that there is basis to do so, the major superior also has the authority to suspend the individual’s activities until an investigation is completed.
In addition, if a bishop suspends the ministry of a religious who works in his diocese, the major superior cannot overrule the bishop, because the ministry belongs to the bishop, such as a parish. The only time when a bishop has no jurisdiction is when the event takes place in a house or institution belonging to the order and not the diocese. In that case, the major superior is the person to contact.
It’s not a matter of religious being more insulated. It’s a matter of religious having a different chain of command.
I hope that I’m wrong. I suspect that many lawyers may prefer to go after a diocese because a diocese has more assets than a religious order. Religoius orders have very few posessions and assets.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status