A tale of two (kinds of) bishops.
When a bishop pleads guilty to possessing child pornography, as did the former bishop of Antigonish in Nova Scotia, the Vatican promises to follow canonical procedures and punish him accordingly. But what happens when the pope removes bishops for less illegal offenses, such as poor management or raising questions about married and women priests? As Austen Ivereigh points out at In All Things, when a pope wants remove a bishop who admits to a grave canonical crime, there are procedures to follow. But when he wants to sack a bishop who hasn’t broken any canon laws, the situation gets a bit murkier. Ivereigh writes:
Yet it seems odd that a bishop convicted and admitting guilty to possession of child pornography should be subjected to a careful canonical process, whereas bishops guilty of mismanagement and doctrinal laxity should be summarily dismissed….
Obviously laicization is far more serious than removal from active ministry–even from episcopal office; and canon law rightly places safeguards. But still, in the case of the Australian and the Congolese bishops, isn’t at least an official explanation due?
The answer is yes. But I’m not holding my breath.
Explanation? Explanation!! Da pope don’t need to give no stinkin’ explanation! When you are The Very Big Kahuna, yer word be law – and don’t you flippin’ forget it, either.
How many times have we said there are grave governnace problems within the church -and we know those problems reach deeply into the curia, their favorites (like Abp. Chaput, the “visitor” in Bishop Morris’s case) and to the Pope himself who (gladly?) lets them have their way.
This model seems to sustain the (inept) USCCB as well with its Bernard Law (thanks to blessedJPII) bishops.
And then there’s canon law, justified because an organization needs rules, but whose rules are often not good law and whose prcesses are not known for justrice or fairness.
Of course we have smooth Romanita verbiage to bless all of this like “visitations.”
I can understand Jimmy Mac’s post quite easily.
A bishop in Australia is removed for saying he would consider ordaining women if the rules were changed. A bishop in Eastern Oregon is kicked upstairs for refusing to comply with the rules on protection of children and for demanding that every lay minister sign an oath that denies the right to conscience. It’s not about justice, fairness, or faith. It’s all about the party line and saying the right things. JPII, who spoke so nobly against the repressive regimes of Eastern Europe, recreated them in the Catholic Church, complete with “temple police.” When will the walls come down?
When the faithful exercise the power of the purse strings. It’s sad to admit but the bishops are in a power relationship with the faithful. Regardless of motivation, the point is control based on power.
A person interested in controlling rather than communicating:
Will not try to comprehend what you are saying
Will deny the validity of your reality and your experiences
Will only hear a fraction of what you say and that fraction will trigger a reaction
Will establish what can be discussed and what cannot be discussed; refusal to discuss is a means to control communication
Will judge, criticize and accuse
Will trivialize, undermine and threaten
Will reject efforts at reconciliation because they are seen as adversarial
Will act as though this behavior is rational.
Sound familiar?
The faithful have a lot to learn from understanding the nature of abusive relationships.
Is it impolitic to suggest that there is perhaps a difference in the actions of the 2 bishops? As disgusting and reprehensible the crime of possession of child porn is, perhaps more so for a cleric, the crime relates to him as a person and not directly to his identity as bishop and priest. On the other hand, Bishop Morris’ acts relate directly to his identity and role as a bishop, i.e. part of the magisterium. Set aside the particular substance of his comments (women’s ordination). He has (much like Arch. Lefberve) acted in a way contrary to his fundamental identity as bishop: to teach the faith of the apostles. When he begins to question the very teaching (and right or wrong, the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination is clear), particularly publicly and openly in writing, certainly he has abrogated his role as such. I know many of the comments will be swayed by the substance of his comments, but I do wonder whether when one looks at it from the perspective of function, he has not crossed a boundary.
Of course it’s impolitic – hence the fuss here.
No Bishiop can openly express the need for change for solid pastoral reasons but he’l lbe slapped down.And the “boundary” is any kind of change!
Also the question of process is swept under the rug in that kind of approach.
Finally, the question of maximal magisterialism, so beloved to radical orthodox people, comes into play here as well.
What church needs a set of laws besides the Ten Commandments. Giving any credence to canon law is like claiming pig latin as a second language.
Bishop Morris was was bitched-slapped by Benedict. As far as Lehay, no doubt his porn has already been devied up among all the dysfunctional sex freaks within the ranks of church hierarchy.
Mike Ference
Jeanne Follman, excellent points; it was because I was recovering from previous abusive relationships that I left the Catholic Church. Seeing those patterns repeated in a church, at every level from parish to Vatican, was just too much.
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
*****************************************************************
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident [canon 749]
FROM THE OFFICIAL VATICAN WEBSITE
Mr. Landry, “the church’s teaching on women’s ordination [may be] clear,” but it is not at all infallible. Canon 749.3 rightfully places the burden on the official teachers to make their case regarding proposed infallible teaching. In his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, JPII presented several faulty premises, thus arriving at a faulty conclusion.
Ball’s in Pope Bennie’s papal court, and he ain’t runnin’ with it!
As for the Morris case, it would certainly appear that B16 is violating the very canon that would give teachers, like the rest of us, the right to speak out on matters of church. In addition, this unChristlike papal behavior — if allowed to stand by the rest of us — would effectively render useless the third mode of infallible teaching, i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium.
After all, why even have this third mode if bishops are forbidden by this pope (or any other pope, for that matter) to think independently and critically — and in good faith — on a matter of proposed church doctrine???
” He has (much like Arch. Lefberve) acted in a way contrary to his fundamental identity as bishop:”
No, Jeff, NOT much like Arch. Lefebvre. The latter defied the popes. Abp. Morris is not defying the popes, he’s only saying that if Rome changes (as it has done about major matters before this) that he will submit to that too.
Ann Olivier, we become what we fear; I believe his fear overcame his very real faith in many ways.
Jeanne Follman is right on target about abusive power.
Here is an interview from Australia about JPII’s mode of control, adapted from the communist government he was familiar with. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1333976.htm (sorry if this is a repeat)
“William Johnston: Well I call it a blind spot; I think that’s a kind way, it may have been deliberate. The example I was told from an eye witness when the American bishops had one of their joint visits to the Pope in the early ‘90s, he greeted each of them individually as they stood in a circle.
Stephen Crittenden: By name?
William Johnston: By name, he knew their names, their diocese and something about them. He went around the circle and charmed all of them. There was one man he wished to punish and each of the three times he came to that man, he was overheard to lean into him and say, ‘And what’s your name? What’s your diocese?’ He did that three times. Now that kind of humiliation among one’s peers smacks of Soviet governmental technique, and I think it was obviously deliberate, it’s cruel, it’s even vindictive and it’s now coming to light.”
As for Ratzinger:
Peter Hebblethwaite: I think Ratzinger himself is very charming, which makes things worse, an inquisitor shouldn’t be too charming. And the trouble is that he’d been a theologian himself and a good one. One could have respect for him. But when you disagreed with him, you wrote a savage review of his book and that was all right. But of course once he became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, then you weren’t equal at all, and he had power on his side, he had power of hiring and firing, and this caused great distress, particularly in Germany, where they knew Cardinal Ratzinger very well.
I include desertdweller in my comment above.
Carolyn, thanks for linking to that interview.
That anecdote about US bishops standing in a circle is amazing. It is also interesting to read about bishops being crestfallen and demoralized by the Vatican apparatus and by having their power taken away from them. I tend to think of bishops as oppressors, not as being oppressed.
Yet how could things be otherwise in an autocracy? The Church is run as an absolute monarchy, one of the few left on the planet. The Pope (and each bishop in his diocese) exercises supreme executive power, supreme judicial power, and supreme legislative power. We thus depend upon the experiences, inclinations and fears of one fallible human being, who according to tradition, when acting without the bishops or the faithful, has no more guarantee of divine guidance than you or I.
That’s why the Church is a management and governance backwater.
From this week’s Tablet: The next target?!
ASKED FOR his views on
women’s ordination in an
interview for his diocesan
newspaper, Bishop Markus
Büchel of St Gallen said the
pressure on bishops to
discuss women’s ordination
was “huge”, writes Christa
Pongratz-Lippitt.
“We can no longer evade
it. For a while it was said
that we must not discuss
the subject but that is
exceedingly difficult in
today’s society. We can no
longer afford to do that,”
Bishop Büchel told
Pfarrblatt.
“We must seek ways
which lead to women’s
ordination and I could
imagine that women
deacons could be one such
step,” the 61-year-old bishop
continued. The issue could
not be “solved” immediately,
he said, but would take
perseverance. Referring to
St Mary Magdalene, he
said, “It was she who gave
the Apostles a ‘shove’ as it
were”, and suggested that it
was because of her powers
of perseverance and
persuasion that the
Resurrected Lord appeared
to her first. Women’s input,
dedication, commitment
and perseverance in
pastoral work in
Switzerland today was
“incredible”, Bishop Büchel
said. Teamwork was “totally
different” if women were
part of the team, he said.
Thanks, David for your post.
I wonder what stalwart hierarch wil have a “visitation” of Bishop Buchel?
But be careful, David, you could be the subject of the Anchoress’s next “joke?”
The “Temple Police” (well-heeled financially, and organized) are a very small minority of the laity, who have the hierarchy’s ear. Many in Australia, believe that this group purposely mis-interpreted Bishop Morris’ comments. The rest of the people might as well be in sound-proof rooms. Their voices are not getting through to the Vatican.
Some interesting notes. In Time Magazine each week, there is an article entitled “The World by Numbers”. It is usually at the bottom of a page. About a month ago, there was a Number 9 on the country of Australia. The legend on the side stated that Australia is one of nine countries in which Religion is becoming extinct.
After this action against Bishop Morris, I would not be surprised to see this extinction of religion speeding up. Tragic!
The references to Eastern Europe are instructive. From Germany to Russia for decades, the most powerful tool of government control of the populace was Mind Control. The Soviet Army was enormous and awesome, but it was Mind Control that was everywhere, all the time, and woe to those who spoke thoughts contrary to the imposed dogma and doctrine. I believe it is hard for those of us who didn’t experience it to grasp the breadth and depth of the phenomenon, both then and now as it is reflected in Church dealings with Bp. Morris, Sr. Johnson, Fr. Bourgeois, many squelched theologians, millions of disillusioned Faithful, and those who object to the hierarchy’s traditional approach to child sexual abuse.
Natural law wasn’t invoked by name in the bringing down of the wall but it’s teachings about humanity as created by God were. Maybe it’s time to get back to basics instead of worrying so much about 1752 canon laws (plus sub-paragraphs).
Really ugly thread. Comments closed.