Vatican impeded Mahony attempts to remove priests, files show

[cheezey]

I never understood the Church’s attitude towards this issue. If a layman is accused of molestation the case is turned over to the police to be investigated and tried if warrented. When a priest was accused the Church stands around and says “Gee, what do we do now?”
If a priest breaks the law he should be treated like any other criminal. If a bishop covers it up he should be held accountable the same way a doctor or teacher would if they didn’t report an abuse. It’s not the Church’s place to decide what happens to clergy who break the law. That is a matter for the state. Clergy are not above the law. That includes bishops and cardinals. End of story.

 

[jimmy]

The article provides a few specific examples of difficulties Mahoney had with the Vatican in dealing with abuser priests he sought to deal with, from the archdiocese records released in the current court case involving the Cardinal. I selected the comments from those with deeper knowledge of the Vatican than the reporter presumably had, because I think this highlights the one great failing of John Paul’s pontificate.

It seems the Vatican is offering good reasons why they shouldn’t have a stranglehold on authority in the Church. Maybe the eastern churches have something when they oppose the centralized conception of authority as in the west. Maybe bishops should have the rights that they used to have over the priests within their own diocese.

 

[pnewton]

There are things that can be done in lieu of a response from Rome.

Like notify the police? Like allowing law enforcement to enforce law?

It seems the Vatican is offering good reasons why they shouldn’t have a stranglehold on authority in the Church.

Reminder that this is a Catholic forum, not an Orthodox forum. There is no need for such rhetoric. There is no “stranglehold” on authority. Quite the opposite. Most dioceses operate under a principle of subsidiarity.

 

[sw85]

Again, any bishop can suspend faculties for any reason or none at all. You don’t need to have a priest laicized to pull him from ministry.

I suspect these bishops are pinning this on the Vatican so as to excuse themselves from blame for having admitted degenerates to the seminaries in the first place, usually against the Vatican’s clear regulation.

 

[jimmy]

Like notify the police? Like allowing law enforcement to enforce law?
Reminder that this is a Catholic forum, not an Orthodox forum. There is no need for such rhetoric. There is no “stranglehold” on authority. Quite the opposite. Most dioceses operate under a principle of subsidiarity.

A bishop has to go to Rome to deal with his own priests, but there is no stranglehold on authority? Righhhhht! The bishop has been hamstrung. He can’t even remove a priest because all his rights have been turned into rights exclusive to the pope, which are then delegated to other bishops who hold residence in rome.

Just because this is a Catholic forum does that mean someone can’t make an assertion that disagrees with the CC? What I said is a common belief among eastern Catholics as well as Orthodox. Are we EC’s unwelcome to speak our minds?

 

[pnewton]

A bishop has to go to Rome to deal with his own priests, but there is no stranglehold on authority? Righhhhht!

Correct.

The bishop has been hamstrung.

And no.

A bishop does not have to go to Rome to “deal” with a priest. Canon Law does not use such terms as “deal” and that is where the error is. A bishop has tremendous control over a priest, but can not laicize without appeal A bishop can remove faculties without appeal, remove from ministry without appeal and (more to the point) make a police report without appeal.

There is no “stranglehold”. There is no need for inflammatory rhetoric. No one is being choked.

 

[Digitonomy]

I suspect these bishops are pinning this on the Vatican so as to excuse themselves from blame for having admitted degenerates to the seminaries in the first place, usually against the Vatican’s clear regulation.

If you’ve got a particular case you’re suspicious about, that might be worth discussing. But in the case of Mahoney, he became Archbishop of LA in 1985. Before that, he was in Fresno. I don’t think he had much to do with the admission to the seminary of priests mentioned in the article, or who we’ve discussed in this thread.

pnewton:

Like notify the police? Like allowing law enforcement to enforce law?

Since the crime has already been committed, the enforcement you speak of would in most cases consist of a police investigation without charges filed due to lack of evidence. This doesn’t mean it’s never of value, but it’s been implied by some that the real problem was not inaction or bad action at various levels in the Church, but simply the failure to involve law enforcement. I suggest that discussion of law enforcement is a red herring that sidesteps the real question of how the Church has failed.

 

[sw85]

I’m amused by the claim that the Church is too centralized. The Vatican’s power is currently at a local minimum, perhaps even an absolute minimum, with respect to the history of the Roman rite. Back in 2005, meeting with Bishop Fellay at Castel Gandolfo, when pressed about why he didn’t reform the Church, the Pope reportedly pointed to the entrance of his chambers and said forlornly, “My authority ends at that door.”

 

[Brendan]

I am confused. Why did the bishops feel they needed the power to laicize the priests and remove them from the priesthood? The article mentions that the local bishop had the power to remove priests from parishes and positions of power, so that will certainly protect further abuse.

That is my thoughts as well.

The local bishops already had the power to remove them from ministry and to remove all their faculties.

The power to laicize SHOULD be heavily guarded.

What was being asked of the Vatican would be similar to the police asking for the right to send a molester to prison without involving the courts.

 

[Brendan]

A bishop has to go to Rome to deal with his own priests

Where did you get that idea??? A bishop can remove a priest from his position, he can sequester him in a monastery, he can remove his faculties. The bishop can turn him over to the secular authorities.

All that can be done with the bishop as the final authority.

The only thing that the bishop CANNOT do is to remove the charism of Holy Orders, to laicize the man, without the man being able to make appeal.

This is a fundamental feature of Justice. Even in secular law, a convicted molester can make an appeal to a higher court. Under what circumstances should any right to appeal be denied in the civil court? And why should an ecclesial court show less justice?

 

[BroomWagon]

Not sure if this has been discussed in this forum. Story is not the same as with Cardinal Mahony but might have some similarities and yes, this extended back even into the '70s.

Ireland’s Cardinal Sean Brady is the latest to come under pressure to quit the upcoming papal conclave because of the alleged cover up of pedophile priest activities.

Read more: irishcentral.com/news/Irish-Cardinal-latest-to-be-asked-to-skip-conclave-over-sex-abuse-scandal-192467231.html#ixzz2LvvB8fG3
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I am confused. Why did the bishops feel they needed the power to laicize the priests and remove them from the priesthood? The article mentions that the local bishop had the power to remove priests from parishes and positions of power, so that will certainly protect further abuse.

It’s not like the Vatican told the priests to stay with children or to stay in the local parish. That’s the job of the local bishop.

There are a few issues at play. If a priest is to be suspended then there needs to be some kind of canonical judgment against him. I’m not sure how easy that is to do without something from the Vatican. If a priest is not suspended then he essentially has a right to an assignment and can petition the Vatican to force the Bishop to give him an assignment. On top of that, even when suspended a priest has the right to be provided for by his diocese. The diocese can’t just cut him loose unless he’s been “defrocked.”

So I can understand why the US Bishops would be keen on getting these guys removed from priesthood as quickly as possible. Otherwise they’re essentially stuck with them.

Since the Dallas Charter the process moves almost lightning quick unless there are overly complicated circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

I suggest that discussion of law enforcement is a red herring that sidesteps the real question of how the Church has failed.

I have always held that holding the Church accountable for failed enforcement of criminal activity and giving everyone else a pass who has the **primary **duty for law enforcement to be the red herring. Funny how that works.

Does anyone have a diocese that has a Church jail, by any chance?

 

[pnewton]

If a priest is not suspended then he essentially has a right to an assignment and can petition the Vatican to force the Bishop to give him an assignment.

Does the assignment need to be a parish or can it be something along the lines of a prison chaplain?

 

[Digitonomy]

I have always held that holding the Church accountable for failed enforcement of criminal activity and giving everyone else a pass who has the **primary **duty for law enforcement to be the red herring. Funny how that works.

Despite the fact that we live in an imperfect world, especially one with a legal presumption of innocence, the Church still has an obligation to protect its flock.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Does the assignment need to be a parish or can it be something along the lines of a prison chaplain?

Yes, it could be prison chaplain. However, that doesn’t solve the problem because he could still help out at other parishes or Catholic schools on his off time and establish connections with children.

 

[pnewton]

Despite the fact that we live in an imperfect world, especially one with a legal presumption of innocence, the Church still has an obligation to protect its flock.

I do not think that point has ever been missed.

 

[tbcrawford]

Despite the fact that we live in an imperfect world, especially one with a legal presumption of innocence, the Church still has an obligation to protect its flock.

This is the most important thing of all

 

[catholicmom2010]

We can speculate all we want, but none of us was there or can judge what was said or done. What is happening on posts like this is pure gossip and we know we should not be participating in it. When we are tempted to do so, we should ask ourselves if we can answer ALL three questions with a yes. If we can’t then, we are gossiping.

Is it true?
Is it kind?
Is it helpful?

 

[miguel]

I’m amused by the claim that the Church is too centralized. The Vatican’s power is currently at a local minimum, perhaps even an absolute minimum, with respect to the history of the Roman rite. Back in 2005, meeting with Bishop Fellay at Castel Gandolfo, when pressed about why he didn’t reform the Church, the Pope reportedly pointed to the entrance of his chambers and said forlornly, “My authority ends at that door.”

Authority is only effective if people obey it.