|
|
Post by iagosan on Nov 20, 2023 10:15:24 GMT
If Bishop Strickland was "fired" by The Vatican / Pope Francis, what are the possible implications for the Vatican concerning their liability regarding proven sexual abuse claims by other Bishops?
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Nov 20, 2023 13:42:59 GMT
What does one have to do with the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by BartholomewB on Nov 20, 2023 15:18:40 GMT
If I have understood iagosan’s question correctly, he is asking whether it will still be possible to pursue the Church’s internal investigation into complaints about Strickland’s responsibilities in sexual abuse cases, or whether those investigations will have to be dropped. Is that it, iagosan? |
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Nov 20, 2023 15:51:35 GMT
If I have understood iagosan ’s question correctly, he is asking whether it will still be possible to pursue the Church’s internal investigation into complaints about Strickland’s responsibilities in sexual abuse cases, or whether those investigations will have to be dropped. Is that it, iagosan ? No, not exactly.
As far as I am aware Bishop Strickland did not receive the canonical trial due to someone being deprived of his see. Consequently, if he did not, he was not provided with the opportunity to offer a defence. Has he had a decree stating dismissal grounds? What is his new status?. It appears to have been an arbitrary decision assumed by an authority that feels it has some form of employer/ employee or master/ servant relationship, and if so, could it be argued that this is will open litigation for vicarious liability in cases where members of the episcopacy have conducted themselves in ways which facilitated sexual abuse etc. etc ?
|
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Nov 20, 2023 16:08:53 GMT
Can. 1371 — § 1. A person who does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the case, with a censure or deprivation of office or with other penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §§ 2-4.
|
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Nov 20, 2023 16:15:39 GMT
Can. 1371 — § 1. A person who does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the case, with a censure or deprivation of office or with other penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §§ 2-4. |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Nov 20, 2023 17:34:09 GMT
The sources reporting on the Strickland removal are stating it was an administrative removal, not a punitive removal. In other words, the Vatican removed him simply because they determined he was ineffective as a bishop, not for any wrongdoing. Therefore, his removal has nothing to do with other punitive removals of bishops for things such as sexual misconduct, financial misconduct, commission of crimes, covering up the misconduct or crimes of others etc. Furthermore Bishop Strickland is treated as a retired bishop who still has full faculties of a bishop. Canon law discussion here: web.archive.org/web/20231117141123/https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/11/13/bishop-strickland-removed-pope-francis-246485 |
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Nov 20, 2023 19:10:18 GMT
Canon law makes deprivation of a see a punitive offence (essentially a criminal, not a civil matter) with the requirement for a “criminal” trial. That includes a statement of grounds, a right to a formal defence and all the other stuff we’re familiar with. Canon law does no such thing. A bishop serves solely at the whim of the Pope, and can be dismissed for any reason, or none at all. They are essentially "at will employees", except that, unlike secular at will employees, they enjoy absolutely no rights or protections vis a vis their "employer", that is, the Pope, who, according to canon law, is the sole, ultimate and absolute arbiter of any dispute. There is no provision for "wrongful termination". The concept is absurd in terms of canon law. Even in civil law, an employer has wide-ranging to dismiss any employee for any reason or none at all. No justification has to be stated. No "trial" or "defense" is required, even if the termination is "punitive". Unlike clerics, including bishops, secular employees do enjoy some protections against wrongful termination, such as discrimination or retaliation for legally protected activities. However, the employee or the state is the plaintiff in such cases and has the burden of proof. The Pope has the absolute power to assign or dismiss any bishop for any reason, or none at all. No matter how "unfair", "unjust" or just plain silly that reason may be. He could dismiss a bishop because he has a third cousin who has a neighbor who is a vegan, or is deaf, or graduated from college, or is one quarter black. Any bishop so dismissed would have zero grounds for recourse under canon law. Also, in matters of church governance, canon law says what the Pope says it says, no more, no less. He is the sole, ultimate and absolutely interpreter of canon law, and he can alter it at his whim, or dispense with it entirely. His decisions cannot be appealed, except to himself. Of course, he reserves the right to reverse his decision for any reason, or none at all, but he has no obligation to even hear the appeal. In matters of church governance, the Pope is an absolute monarch in the most extreme sense of the term. The only limits on his power are pragmatic, not canonical. And death, of course. And it's been like that for almost a thousand years, since Gregory VII, except for during a brief few years during the Council of Constance, and even then. That is what the whole Investiture Controversy was all about. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Nov 20, 2023 22:41:45 GMT
Well, there goes any hope of reunion with the Eastern Orthodox.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Nov 21, 2023 4:31:19 GMT
Well, there goes any hope of reunion with the Eastern Orthodox. There never has been any real hope of reunion with the Eastern Orthodox, except kinda sorta during some points during the Crusades or right before the fall of Constantinople, and even then, it was just floated out there as a vague idea to entice the Pope into sending financial backing. Or, on a more limited scale, during the Crusades in the Middle East amd the Balkans, and during the Renaissance, when Poland/Lithuania gained control of most of the lands of Kievan Rus. Those reunions depended on social structures and cultural specifics that no longer exist. The reunions with Bulgaria and Serbia in the 1200s did not last long at all. However, the absolute nature of the rule of the Pope over the bishops did sink two possible reunions recently during the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, with the Traditional Anglican Communion and the SSPX, both of which set, as a condition of reunion, the retention of their whole episcopal structure intact upon entering the Church, sort of like the Eastern Catholic Churches, just with more than token autonomy. This, of course, was not acceptable to Pope Benedict, and even less so to Cardinal Mueller. That is why the Ordinariate was such a disappointment, and any talk about reunification with the SSPX has completely stopped. Add to that that the Eastern Orthodox have just undergone a major schism of their own, with neither side having even the slightest interest in reuniting with Rome under any circumstances. |
|
