Vatican 'Horrified' by Criticism from Germany ... Some even think the pope could resign

[Corki]

In the past the church claimed clergy exemption from prosecution and insisted on the right to try clergy in church courts, but what I was talking about was a man who has ALREADY done his time – he’s already been CONVICTED remember? – but upon serving all his time, he found a calling to the priesthood, has been exemplary in Christian sanctity for many years and the hiearchy wishes to appoint him to be bishop but the secular law of the land says that corporate office holders (the dioceses is a corporation in secular law) of that level must be free of felony convictions. We don’t have those laws at present, **but the state would have every right to enact them and every right to apply them if it deems wise to all corporations and enforce it against those of both a religious orientation and non-religious orientation. ** For all we know, the fall out from this economic crisis might involve the enactment of laws of this kind.

I don’t know what country you live in, but the “state” could not enact such laws in the US; it would be unconstitutional. First of all, there is the establishment clause that would prohibit the state from interfering in the running of the Church. Second, the state has no say in who holds office in privately held corporations. The only way the government has the right to implement certain limits on public corporations (ie Sarbanes-Oxley) is in order to protect shareholders. The Church is a private, not a public corporation and has no shareholders.

 

[Corki]

I don’t want to veer off into those theological discussions, but we can look at how the church is evolving. Parishes have been required to have lay committees that approve of certain decisions like financial decisions. Bishops have been required to have committes of priests and laity that need to approve of certain large financial decisions. More recently, there have been lay review boards for dioceses and national churches to hold bishops accountable in matters related to sexual abuse. This is all in church law or formally authorized.

Parishes are required to have one lay committee - finance. The finance committee oversees the financial operations of the parish but only the pastor has the authority to approve financial decisions.

There are lay review boards but it is not mandatory for a diocese to participate with them. There function is strictly advisory. They have no decision making authority.

These committees and boards are reflective of a desire by the heirarchy for more transparancy but should not be mistaken for a shift toward corporate decision making. As mentioned above, the Church is not a democracy.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Parishes are required to have one lay committee - finance. The finance committee oversees the financial operations of the parish but only the pastor has the authority to approve financial decisions.

There are lay review boards but it is not mandatory for a diocese to participate with them. There function is strictly advisory. They have no decision making authority.

These committees and boards are reflective of a desire by the heirarchy for more transparancy but should not be mistaken for a shift toward corporate decision making. As mentioned above, the Church is not a democracy.

Corki, both the pastor and the committee must approve certain decisions and the same is true of the bishop and the presybteral council and a diocese-level financial committee (which has lay members) for certain decisions as well. Some dioceses didn’t have these committees all set up including on the diocese level but with the lawsuits and all, the word came down from the Vatican to get in compliance with church law. So this part of it is not just advisory.

Some parishes may have other committees of an advisory nature (like a liturgical committee)

I know many in the church wish to evolve it more and more along these lines and some propose that the church have a legal “constitution” that the pope would be subject to just as any church member. Currently the pope is thought to be above all church law or if not above it technically, at least able to with supreme power able to change it as he pleases (within the bounds of natural and divine law, of course). So for example, the pope is free to change the number of cardinal electors at will and abrogate the law limiting it to 120. So with this liberalizing proposal, just as the president nor the chief justice is above the constitution, the pope would not be above a legal constitution and could not change it by means other than laid out therein. So if the constitution said the cardinal electors had to be at most 120 and the number could not changed without the approval of a majority of cardinals, then the pope couldn’t change it against the constitution.

Hopefully, world leaders and religious leaders both Catholic and non-Catholic will prod the church into this correction. Ultimately, more corporate forms of governance are better for the world. The church is beginning to recognize this not just in law and practice but also doctrinally with Vatican II’s teaching on collegiality. This collegiality must not just be in name only. The pope should consult with his colleagues such as Walter Kasper who has said he was not consulted on the decision to lift the excommunications. Walter Kasper surely knew about Williamson’s opinions since Kasper is responsible for dialogue with Jews.

 

[vs_trumpet]

the “state” could not enact such laws in the US; it would be unconstitutional.

I disagree. The Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that laws which are not designed with animus towards a religion but apply generally to religious and non-religious alike, but have the effect of inhibiting a religious practice can be constitutional. In a case involving marijuana usage in religious ceremony, the Court ruled that since the law applies generally, it is constitutional. If the U.S. enacted a law that was targeted just at religiously oriented corporations, then it would be unconstitutional, but not necessarily if it was a general law.

Second, the state has no say in who holds office in privately held corporations.

That is how the law is today, I was speaking of how the law could change. This is statutory, not constitutional.

Also, the government, generally the courts, sometimes acts on private corporations in directing their governance. For ex. some cases of minority shareholder suppression.

 

[Corki]

vs trumpet,

Again, I don’t know where you are but the canon law regarding parish finance councils is:

Can. 537 In each parish there is to be a finance committee to help the parish priest in the administration of the goods of the parish, without prejudice to can. 532. It is ruled by the universal law and by the norms laid down by the diocesan Bishop, and it is comprised of members of the faithful selected according to these norms.

Can. 532 In all juridical matters, the parish priest acts in the person of the parish, in accordance with the law. He is to ensure that the parish goods are administered in accordance with cann. 1281-1288.

A quick search shows that there are some diocese in the US that have defined certain decisions as needing committee approval. But this is a local (diocisan) practice rather than a blanket requirement. In our diocese, it is not required for anything that falls into the normal course of business. I believe the only thing the parish finance council actually approves is the finacial statement to be sent to the auditors.

As for diocese:

Can. 1277 In carrying out acts of administration which, in the light of the financial situation of the diocese, are of major importance, the diocesan Bishop must consult the finance committee and the college of consultors. For acts of extraordinary administration, except in cases expressly provided for in the universal law or stated in the documents of foundation, the diocesan Bishop needs the consent of the committee and of the college of consultors. It is for the Episcopal Conference to determine what are to be regarded as acts of extraordinary administration.

It appearch based on Canon law that the Episcopal Conferences authority on an individual diocese in this matter is to define “extraordinary”.

As for your “constitution” idea, that would be tantamount to letting the inmates run the asylum, IMHO.

 

[vs_trumpet]

A quick search shows that there are some diocese in the US that have defined certain decisions as needing committee approval. But this is a local (diocisan) practice rather than a blanket requirement. In our diocese, it is not required for anything that falls into the normal course of business. I believe the only thing the parish finance council actually approves is the finacial statement to be sent to the auditors.

You may be right on that, but my recollection is that at least for things outside the “normal course of business”, there is a universal requirement (note the canon referes to “universal law” as well) there too for if memory serves me certain big financial decisions. On the diocesan level, I believe it’s not only governed by the national conference, but for certain big financial decisions it requires that committee approval as well as Vatican approval – so for sales of church assets more than $5 million for small dioceses, it requires this and the same is true of large dioces but with a threshold of $10 million. Google it

I don’t know how things worked under the 1917 code, but my impression is that things are moving in this direction of democratic or collegial consultation.

 

[Kaninchen]

I believe that no church should have political power because it is a church.
However, I ALSO believe that members of a church has the right to speak their minds in relation to how society is to function. Or would you exclude some people from the right of influencing how a democratic society should be run?

Obviously, unlike you, I wouldn’t exclude Angela Merkel.

 

[LutheranDK]

Obviously, unlike you, I wouldn’t exclude Angela Merkel.

The difference is, that the a church is not a democratic society. It is a Theocracy.
Angela Merkel can speak up on German society all she likes. What she shouldn’t speak up on is how the RC church, or any church, should conduct its affairs

 

[Kaninchen]

The difference is, that the a church is not a democratic society. It is a Theocracy.
Angela Merkel can speak up on German society all she likes. What she shouldn’t speak up on is how the RC church, or any church, should conduct its affairs

Are you really sure about that? No matter what any Church does, no matter what consequences, intentional or unintentional, on the internal affairs of any State, the elected government of the State involved has no right whatsoever to, at the very least, ask for clarification?

 

[LutheranDK]

Are you really sure about that? No matter what any Church does, no matter what consequences, intentional or unintentional, on the internal affairs of any State, the elected government of the State involved has no right whatsoever to, at the very least, ask for clarification?

1: What consequences have the lifting of the excommunication of SSPX had on Germany’s internal affairs?

2: Does the government have a right to interfere in the inner workings of private organisations? “No”. Plain and simple “no”.

3: Everyone may ASK for “clarification”, but no such question can be asked by a head of government AS a head of government.
I.e = If Merkel had made the statement as a private individual, I wouldn’t have complained. When the German chancellor, however, wants to dictate the internal workings of the church, it is untimely meddling in affairs which are not her business…

That’s just the way it is. Or would you have the authorities dictate how to run the Jewish community as well?

 

[grampben]

1: What consequences have the lifting of the excommunication of SSPX had on Germany’s internal affairs?

She needed clarification because anti-semites in Germany could capitalise on it by saying that the church denies the holocaust so everyone can (not true but that would be the propaganda). The creation of an anti-semitic ‘christianity’ brought many germans to anti-semitism in the 30’s and for obvious reasons Ms Merkel does not want that to happen again.

 

[pnewton]

We don’t have those laws at present, but the state would have every right to enact them and every right to apply them if it deems wise to all corporations and enforce it against those of both a religious orientation and non-religious orientation.

And the Church would have every right to opppose them. Americans went to war once to assure basic rights like freedom of religion, as well as the right to free speech.

I know Germany has a poor history in such matters.
I don’t think this German law is a good one, but people need to respect German

Only in Germany.

 

[pnewton]

.
Angela Merkel can speak up on German society all she likes. What she shouldn’t speak up on is how the RC church, or any church, should conduct its affairs

Actually, like all people, she should have the right to speak her mind (although this is not the universal law of the land in Germany). However, she should expect to be ignored by the Church and castigated by all when by exercising her free speech she oversteps the boundries of her authority and speaking in areas that are beyond her ken, just like Williamson. Frau Hypocrite.

 

[Kaninchen]

1: What consequences have the lifting of the excommunication of SSPX had on Germany’s internal affairs?

Where is the answer to the question I asked?

Are you really sure about that? No matter what any Church does, no matter what consequences, intentional or unintentional, on the internal affairs of any State, the elected government of the State involved has no right whatsoever to, at the very least, ask for clarification?

Are you saying that? Be clear, are you saying that?

You know perfectly well the context of Merkel’s request for clarification - a situation where, unless the Vatican was absolutely clear about what it was saying, it could be interpreted and certainly would be interpreted by certain groups, that somebody who embraced views about German history (that are illegal to be expressed in Germany) was not only going to be welcomed back into the fold but was going to be welcomed back as a Bishop of the Church.

She asked for clarification - she did not launch an attack on the Church, she did not announce a Kulturkampf.

That’s just the way it is. Or would you have the authorities dictate how to run the Jewish community as well?

No, let’s take a different religion. Suppose a very senior Muslim cleric issued a fatwa that could very well have an affect within the UK or Italy, I would not only expect the Prime Minister to ask, at least, for clarification, I would be severely miffed if they didn’t.

Being me, I’d be very much less raucous in my miffedness about the issue than most posters on CAF, that’s for sure.

Now you know why I’d like an answer to my question, by the way.

 

[fix]

In the past the church claimed clergy exemption from prosecution and insisted on the right to try clergy in church courts, but what I was talking about was a man who has ALREADY done his time – he’s already been CONVICTED remember? – but upon serving all his time, he found a calling to the priesthood, has been exemplary in Christian sanctity for many years and the hiearchy wishes to appoint him to be bishop but the secular law of the land says that corporate office holders (the dioceses is a corporation in secular law) of that level must be free of felony convictions. We don’t have those laws at present, but the state would have every right to enact them and every right to apply them if it deems wise to all corporations and enforce it against those of both a religious orientation and non-religious orientation. For all we know, the fall out from this economic crisis might involve the enactment of laws of this kind.

Anyway, please answer the question now that I’ve clarified it for you.

The state has no say who may be ordained according to the requirements of the Church. At least in free countries.

Your example is still no proof the state gets to interfer in how how Church governs itself. We are talking about matters regarding theology here not matters involving state law.

If the Pope wants to lift an excommunication no secular authority has any “rights” in this matter.

If the state wants to execute some person the Church has the right and duty to speak on that issue.

Can you see a diference?

 

[fix]

Good. And it has that moral authority and duty with regard to church and any other element of society and even if you think the Vatican has done nothing wrong here, even though many including Vatican officials have said they screwed up, you acknowledge this in the general.

And not just moral right and duty but on more practical things like public health. If for example, there’s a pandemic or the danger of one, and communion with the holy Wine could increase the threat to public health, the state has the authority to order the church to stop distributing communion that way even for priests who concelebrate. And if some virulence was known to be spreading through wheat products, then the state would have the authority in an abundance of caution to directly implement in swift and medically effective fashion, the destruction of even consecrated Bread of Life, and to seize all wheat products that the church possesses and to prohibit possession and production of wheat and wheat products. If that means the church would for a time have to bear without communion, that’s a sacrifice the church a responsible member of society must in obedience to civil authority make. If the threat is worldwide and so dangerous that world bodies in consultation determine that all wheat farms must be destroyed, then until the threat is entirely eradicated and scientists with confidence extract wheat seed from the “doomsday” seed vault (which contains seeds of all kinds), the church would have to in obedience to civil authority and international law and just as a responsible member of the human family bear with the temporary cessation of some religious practice.

Another area might be if the state gave a “national security letter” under recent law which would prevent a person from discussing a matter with anyone but his lawyer. According to Fox News’ “the Judge”, he would be prevented from discussing it even with his spouse or priest. So even if church practice might call him to mention the matter in confession, any mention of it would be in violation of this law of the land with grave legal consequences.

The state has the power to do much, but that does not mean any misuse of such power gives them any authentic right or duty.

The Church does not have to obey any unjust law.

I still fail to see any equivalency in the issue I originally brought up.

 

[LutheranDK]

Where is the answer to the question I asked?

Are you really sure about that? No matter what any Church does, no matter what consequences, intentional or unintentional, on the internal affairs of any State, the elected government of the State involved has no right whatsoever to, at the very least, ask for clarification?

Are you saying that? Be clear, are you saying that?

Ah, I see. You want a one-syllable answer, because you’re trying to set me up…
Well, I’m not gonna play along. I gave you my answer, and if that’s not good enough, well then :bighanky:
I answered your question - how about answering mine? Do you believe that the State has the right to interfere in the internal workings of private organisations? And do you believe that the State has the right to tell the Jewish community how it should be organized?

You know perfectly well the context of Merkel’s request for clarification

“Request”?
A request would go something like this:
“I’d like to know, if you think this and this?”

Merkel came out and, in politicans’ language, demanded that the pope take such and such action. That is meddling.

• a situation where, unless the Vatican was absolutely clear about what it was saying, it could be interpreted and certainly would be interpreted by certain groups, that somebody who embraced views about German history (that are illegal to be expressed in Germany) was not only going to be welcomed back into the fold but was going to be welcomed back as a Bishop of the Church

1: Whether or not the views are illegal in Germany is very much irrelevant. The views were broadcasted in an interview with a Swedish newspaper, in Sweden, and is therefore none of Germany’s business in the first place.

2: The Pope DID come out an condemn Holocaust denial even before Frau Merkel decided that she needed to make herself a little more popular by beating a dying horse…

She asked for clarification - she did not launch an attack on the Church, she did not announce a Kulturkampf.

She, in the usual subtle way of politicians, gave the Pope the finger. If that is not an attack on the Church, I don’t know what is.

No, let’s take a different religion. Suppose a very senior Muslim cleric issued a fatwa that could very well have an affect within the UK or Italy, I would not only expect the Prime Minister to ask, at least, for clarification, I would be severely miffed if they didn’t.

Nice attempt at dodging - but it ain’t gonna work.
Should politicians also demand “clarifications” from the Chief Rabbinates in Israel, about the attacks on Christians and Messianic Jews by some Haredim?

Now you know why I’d like an answer to my question, by the way.

I gave you your answer already…

 

[LutheranDK]

Another area might be if the state gave a “national security letter” under recent law which would prevent a person from discussing a matter with anyone but his lawyer. According to Fox News’ “the Judge”, he would be prevented from discussing it even with his spouse or priest. So even if church practice might call him to mention the matter in confession, any mention of it would be in violation of this law of the land with grave legal consequences.

Well, I’m no expert on these matters, as you might have guessed, but I’ve been told that the confessor may under NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER mention anything that has been said to him in the confessional.
So no one would ever KNOW that he had mentioned it to anyone - and there would be no problem.

Furthermore, Christians are called to obey God before man, if we have to choose…

 

[LutheranDK]

Only in Germany.

Indeed.

Williamson made those false claims in Sweden, and not in Germany. Therefore, it’s not any of Germany’s business…

 

[eucharist04]

spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,605714,00.html

As frustrated as the pope may be about the continuing debate, at least one Vatican insider thinks Benedict may even consider turning in his resignation. Father Eberhard von Gemmingen, head of the German language staff at Radio Vatican, said the pope "has his back to the wall," in comments to German radio. “As I know the pope,” he said, "then it is certainly possible that he has thought to himself: ‘At some point I might have to step down so that the papacy is respected.’"

May the pope be given wisdom, courage and humility in discerning and following G-d’s will in all matters.

You can not please everybody.