Posted on 07/20/2007 8:00:42 AM PDT by NYer
Actually, there's a lot of sense in that.
It's not like the Church sprang up 10 years ago or half a century ago or in 1521. It's been in business for 2,000 years and it's pretty much seen it all during that time. It's seen some extraordinary occurrences and lived through some great difficulties. That's a rich store of history and precedent to fall back on. Church history can tell us an awful lot about the way to approach problems.
To what exactly are you referring? Do you mean the 1983 Code of Canon Law? John Paul II?
“The gradualist approach may turn out to have been a mistake, but I don’t think so.”
The problem with the gradualist approach is that the longer you allow bad Bishops with their bad teaching (or lack of any teaching) to inflict themselves on a diocese the less the laity even know that something is wrong in their diocese. Is this guy saying that the areas with craptastic Bishops are just unlucky, and ultimately there is nothing the Church can do for years and years until the bad Bishop kicks it or retires?
Freegards
Exactly!
There are sooo many people I would love to have this article shown to. Excellent post 'Nyer'. Written at an easy enough level for most malformed Catholics to understand.
I remember all the complaints under Pope John Paul II's papacy concerning why he never "fired" such and such bishops, etc - as if he were the CEO of Catholic Church Inc. (many of them right here on FR). I get quite nervous when I hear people start freely bad mouthing bishops particularly coming from second, third, fourth hand info. Our job as laity is prayer (unless we don't trust in the power of God).
It is easy to understand how heresies and schisms can begin and grow with that mentality.
"Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch - again, an excellent quote 'NYer'. If I had a dime for everytime I've met people so much smarter and able than the Pope or any number of bishops, why, I should've elected them on the spot ( and then retired)!
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Schism is definitely the primary concern in why the Bishops aren’t removed from their position. The last thing that the Vatican wants is a bunch of renegade bishops running around illicitly, but validly ordaining new bishops who have sworn no oath of obedience to the pope. However, it might be quite appropriate to remove the red hat from some of the cardinals who are out of line.
So to get to the gist of it, a bishop is secure in a position of almost absolute power. And you know the expression, ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
I’ve noticed that tag-line many times and believe it’s actually a commonly repeate oversimplification of the longer and more accurate quote, which is as follows (you can see the meaning is slightly different):
“Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present;
just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
So do you think this article gives the wrong impression concerning what the Holy Father could do with bad Bishops?
Freegards
Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church ... and, after 2000 years, the Church is still vital and thriving, despite bad priests, bishops, cardinals and even some bad popes.
Your statement fails when it comes to the good bishops and we all know who they are. It's all relative.
Indeed, Fr. Johansen provides a detailed, in depth explanation of the workings of the hierarchy. This follows what someone posted on another thread the other day regarding "Ut Unum Sint" and the Eastern Churches. Consider that in those Churches, there is yet another layer of authority - that of the Patriarch. I am most blessed in that our Maronite bishop is young, humble and very devout. He also insists that his clergy wear their clericals at all times.
“Our bishop is on the wrong side of the illegal alien issue.
Any suggestions?”
Yes. Send him a letter reminding him to stay out of political issues and pay more attention to his own responsibilities.
Quote from the article I thought you'd be interested in.
My impression is that in principle the power to remove bishops from their jurisdiction or diocese is within the authority of the Roman Pontiff to govern the entire church in accordance to the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus. However, this article's point about the possibility of schism is a very real and serious one. In the real world forcefully removing a bishop could precipitate a schism in the church creating renegade bishops as I mentioned in a previous post. The last thing the Vatican wants are bishops running around ordaining valid bishops illicitly who swear no oath of obedience to the pope. In order to prevent this sort of confusion and chaos from ripping the church apart, the pope does not exercise the authority to remove a bishop from his jurisdiction except under the most extraordinary circumstances. In other words, the pope has the power to remove bishops, but using this power could lead to a greater disaster than allowing such a bishop to remain in place. Since the pope's primary concern is for the unity of the church and salvation of souls, he would avoid this at all costs, even if it means enduring some peculiar behavior from various bishops.
I don’t think informed Catholics expect a bishop to be ‘fired’ in that sense, some of this article is quite obvious and simplistic, maybe for non-Catholics it helps clarify some things.
The issue is that priest or bishop who is in a role that’s not suitable for him (eg parish work) can be removed from it and he still remains a priest. He may even find greater fulfillment of his calling practicing in a field much different, that should be discerned with his superiors. (In Mahony’s case, for example, were he to be immediately removed from his current role, I think he might make a very good errand boy for the Holy Father’s secretary’s secretary).
It’s interesting that even though the author carefully explains these reasons for not removing a bishop, he still has his own “fantasy” (which is good for a few chuckles):
http://thrownback.blogspot.com/2007/07/even-priests-have-fantasies-so.html
Not entirely accurate. Working from memory on Canon Law the only sacrament a Priest who has been dismissed can lawfully administer is absolution in the case of a person on the verge of death and only if another Priest is unavailable.
“To what exactly are you referring?”
I’m referring to a paper which started out as a puff piece along the lines of “Three Stages of the De-Hellenification of Christian Theology” and ended up a muddled mess trying to do too many things at once and all of them badly.
It’s a paper that’s widely quoted ;-)
For all of the hysterical rhetoric about “why doesn’t the Pope ddoooooo something”, he was successful in removing Cardinal Law in Boston. Of his own, it would have taken dynamite to get Law to leave the Archdiosese of Boston. He felt he was next in line for the Papacy up until the time the scandals started being made public. Law was finally sent to Rome and placed in basically a do nothing position, which effectively removes him from consideration as Pope (which was obvious when Ratzinger was elected Pope). Just because John Paul II didn’t “do something” in a dramatic and public way, doesn’t mean nothing was done. And I’m sure Pope Benedict is working in that same quiet fashion.
Cardinal Mahoney must be removed.
While I might very well like to see that happen ... that decision is above my paygrade.
So instead, I'll pray for him ... May God grant that he become greater in holiness than I, provided that I become as holy as I should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.