As always, excellent teaching! While the court case mentioned may well help many (including not a few Catholics) understand what the Church IS, I am not so optimistic about how the Church will defend itself. It seems we have a case of "all those not here, please raise your hand."

Hi Chuck! I just read your letter. It's a nice "Horse blanket", but I don't think it will work. When you waddle like a duck, quack like a duck, and fly like a duck -- you're a duck. Someone needs to tell the Pope and all you high flyers to duck!!!

sanpietrini, what is the meaning of your last sentence?
I personally am surprised that the court is even entertaining the argument that the bishops are "employees" of the Pope but maybe that is due to ignorance.

Right on about the ironic times. When Ascension Thursday is celebrated as its rightful, traditional special Holy Day (outside of regular weekly Mass) in some Archdioceses and not in others, that says a lot about our lack of priorities and common sense. The terrible confusion created, and ensuing lack of respect for a vital Church tenet, by such discretion needs to cease. So many faithful are founded, are we not adding to this? St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us!

P.S. God bless all the survivors of the clergy sex abuse and atrocious hierarchy cover-up. Of course our prayers are always with them. St. Padre Pio, pray for us!

The archbishop is making the arguments the Church will make in court to defend itself. The comment about the surprise the court is even going to entertain the argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of our legal system and the Constitution. The case has been brought and of course the court will listen to the arguments. If the arguments are frivolous the people that brought them to court may have to pay the Church's attorney's fees.

And, as always, this archbishop is front and center in the public/political arena making his case in the temporal plain. He is, if nothing else, good at this. He fights statutes of limitation and other legislative proposals. But if he is suggesting he does not exercise power or has no power to influence local parishes I can tell you from personal experience that he is not correct. He literally blew up my church of nearly thirty years. I am under the impression that he thought our parish "too liberal." He is himself mostly a CEO and a political animal which does not comport with the notion of what a Catholic bishop or religious leader should be.

You bet he has power over local parishes -- but only those within his own archdiocese, which was his point.

Richard, you should go back and re-read what the Archbishop has written. He did not state that he does not have power or influence over his local parishes. He is the Archbishop over the "province" that includes the Dioceses of Pueblo and Colorado Springs and Cheyenne. Those Dioceses have their own Bishops. Archbishop Chaput is the Bishop of Denver, where he definitely has authority and he exercises that authority.

"...I have neither the authority nor the foolishness to meddle in the life of a sister diocese." Here he is speaking of these other Dioceses that are included in the "province" of the Archdiocese of Denver. He will not meddle with Bishop Sheridan, or Bishop Tafoya, or any other Bishops. They are all equals and are each in charge of their dioceses.

Again, he has every right to exert authority over any parish or priest or pastor in his Diocese. If your parish was "blown up" as you say, by Archbishop Chaput, there must have been good reason for him to step in. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor are we Protestant where anything we want goes. The Archbishop is our shepherd and even when we don't like or understand why he is doing certain things, we can be assured that he is doing these things out of concern and love for his "sheep."

Jon, your comments are disrespectful to the Archbishop. The article is exceptionally written and very informative to the all members of the Roman Catholic church.

Jon Melaver seems to have spent too much time observing ducks.
Richard seems to have a personal grudge.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the American structure is that the bishop is the rough equivalent of a CEO for his diocese, hence his need for a fair sized staff. Certainly the dioceses own all parish property. That is why the dioceses affected have paid out such large sums for historical difficulties among a minority of the priests. The bishop is also much more, including the main face of the local church to the public, a position which is inherently political. Neither of those should be surprising.

Hello Richard sorry about your Church but please read the article properly at least before you comment.

The dogmas of Vatican I are relevant here. They state that the bishops, both individually and collectively, are heirarchically subordinate to the Pope. They owe him unquestioned obedience in matters of church governance, among other things.

Materially speaking, there is certainly room there potentially to implicate the pope as an accomplice in episcopal malfeasance in connection with the sex abuse crisis. Let's have some discovery of the relevant documents by the plaintiffs' attorneys, and see whether the heirarchical subordination of the American bishops to the pope put them into a position of rendering him unquestioning obedience in covering up sex crimes by clergy.

We are a country here in the US that operates in accordance with the rule of law, are we not?

The legal somersaults engaged in by the Archbishop are unfortunate but understandable as we do not want the alms given by Catholics to go to Plaintiffs lawyers. Yet the idea that the Pope who has the power to appoint bishops and remove them is ignored here. While the Church is not a corporation it is an entity. If we apply theological concepts of the Pope and the Church as the Body of Christ than we do fall closer to the employee concept. Priests raped children. Bishops ignored this (relied on therapeutic conclusions) and we are paying the price. While we do not want to open the coffers to the Plaintiffs bar we must not allow this desire to argue our way into the land of a Church without a head (a very Protestant concept). Who is responsible for all of this? This reliance on the therapeutic by the American Bishops forced Fr. Neuhaus, R.I.P. to state that the crypt of National Basilica in Washington was a fitting repository for the American Episcopacy. Instead of being people who had a vision from on high too many Bishops delegated their office to therapists.

the pope chooses all Roman Catholic bishops and deposes heretical bishops. The pope laicizes priests. These are the duties of a CEO-- to hire and fire.

To all that directed comments to my input, I did misunderstand the archbishop's comments and the structure of this organization. But I do not have a "grudge." Why would I take it personally? He did have a reason for what he did, a narrow-minded and venal set of reasons that sent the clear message that this leader cares far more about rigid doctrine and structural integrity of the organization than he cares about PEOPLE. For all you conservative, hard core true believers, how is that approach working for the Church these days?

Is it really true that Bishops, Catholics, are not required to follow the Pope?

"He literally blew up my church of nearly thirty years. "

Richard, ya just gotta give us a YouTube link for that! Priceless!

Thank you, Archbishop Chaput. This is something that I as a lay Catholic have had many troubles over, as I watch abuses go on and wonder why the bishop doesn't do something, and why the pope doesn't "call him on the carpet." I guess that as Americans we so want everything to fit into our modern business experience, and we want our "structure" to be just like the efficient business models that we all think best.

As Catholic laypeople we then have a duty to regard our bishop as more than the head of the company, but rather the father of our family; to be docile and reverent toward him; to pray for his strength and wisdom; to avoid mean-spirited criticism and gossip about him. We've not done well in this area at all!

But on the flip side, this calls bishops to stop behaving like CEOs and more like fathers. This would mean having a way for members of their dioceses to actually communicate directly with them, rather than being confronted by a wall of chancery officials and form letter responses. It would mean making visits -- in person -- to parishes to get to know the character and "flavor" of them, rather than depend on second-hand information. And it would mean having first and foremost the spiritual -- not financial -- wellbeing of the diocese at the forefront of his mind when he speaks out or is silent on those hot-button issues of the day. He should personally preach, govern, and sanctify, not through committee and not through proxy.

"I may be mistaken, but I believe the American structure is that the bishop is the rough equivalent of a CEO for his diocese."

Correct, and Archbishop Chaput is wrong as a matter of law. Each diocese is incorporated, usually as corporation sole. Here's the official Colorado Secretary fo State corporate record for the Archdiocese of Denver: http://bit.ly/bFAIhR

He is partially correct that the church is a confederation. But it has not been structured as a confederation of families. It is a confederation of corporations. those corprations in the United Staes may stand in a subsidiary-parent relationship with the Pope.

Does the Pope have the power to appoint the heads of the U.S. corporations? Yes.

Does the Pope have the power to restructure the geographic territories of the U.S. Corporations?
Yes.

Do the presidents of the U.S. Corporations make visits to the Pope on a regular basis to inform him of activites in their geographic zones of control, such as ad limina visits?
Yes.

Does the Pope have to power to remove bishops from their duties?
Yes.

Is there some form of corporate charter or by-laws that set out the respective responsibilities that is not "scripture?"
Yes, the Code of Canon Law.

Is there solid evidence that may convince a judge that there is a corporate relationship betwen the Vatican and each diocese?
Yes.

Is the corporate parent liable for the torts of corporate subsidiaries?
In many cases, depending on the facts, yes.

Are there defenses such as sovereign immunity? Yes. Are those defenses absolute? No. Sovereign states do conduct activities under the form of wholly owned corporations. They may be liable for their corporate activites in some cases.

"The Church is much closer to a confederation of families than a modern corporation." The problem is that many of the fathers of those families have criminally abdicated their responsibilities--and when sued, invoked the shield of corporate status and the protections of bankrutcy law. In repsonse to complaints of clerical sexual abuse, they acted as corporate CEOs, not pastoral shepherds.

Having already chosen to act as CEOs claiming the benefit of corporate status, they cannot now be heard to complain when they are treated as corporate entities when that status no longer suits them.

This is not an anti Catholic thing. All religious denominations may chose to structure themselves as corporations under the law or to conduct business as corporations. There are benefits to doing that. There are also consequences.

So if the Pope is not the CEO of the bishops, and fellow bishops do not meddle in each others affairs, then to whom are the bishops accountable? According to Archbishop Chaput: no one.

For Joe McFaul

"Is the corporate parent liable for the torts of corporate subsidiaries?
In many cases, depending on the facts, yes."

And those types of facts are?

Beth:
To whom are bishops accountable? Well, to the Lord, of course! Do we really believe that? Because if we do, then we have a whole lot of praying to do for these weak sinners who wear the mitres. We always do want to see justice done in this world. But it can help to remember that even if we don't see it here, it will still be done, and bad bishops will still have some 'splainin' to do.

That said, the secondary answer is, the bishops ARE accountable to the pope to a certain degree, but not in the way that a franchise holder is to his employer. The pope isn't a bishop's employer. And bishops are, one would hope, accountable to other bishops (that old "fraternal correction" idea has not quite died, certainly), but not in a legalistic way.

Perhaps it's a bit like a marriage? Spouses are accountable to one another, but not necessarily responsible for each other's actions in a legal sense. (But wait -- they can fire each other. That analogy breaks down...)

Actually, spouses can be legally liable for each other's actions. In a community property state, if a couple divorces and one party incurs debt on behalf of the community, then that debt can be imputed to the other party during marriage and may be apportioned after divorce. And yes, couples can fire (divorce) each other.

Nothing like a combox to elicit comments from the legally illiterate on complex legal issues. The fact that American dioceses are often (but not always) incorporated is irrelevant. The idea that American courts have the power to exercise jurisdiction over foreign states and nationals in the manner proffered by the plaintiffs in this case is simply absurd---not only in this case but in others alleging similar things. The judicial hubris in entertaining such complaints is really quite appalling. The only thing that ought to come out of this whole affair is Rule 11 sanctions.

Archbishop Chaput is indeed, extremely political; he was one of the few who, like fellow arch-conservative Archbishop Burke, began to urge the excommunication of politicians who did not support his extreme ("disproportionate"; "one issue") idea of Catholic doctrine, against abortion. The view that, in the formulation of EWTN ally Carl Keating, insures Catholics that they must always vote for the most anti-abortion candidate - Vote Republican - in every election.

Chaput is therefore a very, very, very political, conservative Republican archbishop. But in his involvement in politics, isn't Chaput following too much, the "traditions of men," over the Tradition of the Church? It would appear so. And it seems clear that in his eagerness to escape just laws, he has resorted to dozens of defences of the Church's alleged innocence, that are not quite fully Christian, or Catholic.

For example? First of all, as many have rightly noted here consider 1) his insistence that the Bishops, Catholics, do not follow the Vatican; or in effect, his incredible insistence that Bishops, Catholics, do not have to follow the Pope.

Do Bishops and Catholics not have to follow the Pope? This is on the face of it, obviously incorrect. First, a) Catholics can remember countless homilies in Church, telling us to follow, obey, the Pope, of course. So that it is clear that the Church in fact DOES tell us to follow central leadership; the Vatican, the Pope. Though b) some current documents give some relative independence to the Bishops, still, the Pope is "first" among equals; giving him central authority. While indeed, c) the Pope is said to be often, rather uniquely "infallible." And therefore, as having more authority that other bishops. While d) the Popes are considered heirs of the mantle of St. Peter, vicar of Christ and first and central of God's apostles.

So first of all, Chaput's main contention - that Bishops, Catholics, are not centrally directed by the Vatican - is obviously, false. Indeed, the main point that attorneys seek to prove here - that the Church is in fact, centrally directed by the Vatican, the Pope - is obviously, correct. According to the Church's own frequent, prior testimony. Indeed, to say otherwise, the Church has to abandon one of the main pillars of its own sacred Tradition.

For Archbishop Chaput to claim that Bishops, Catholics, don't have to follow the Pope, the Vatican, is ... extremely disingenuous. Surely, every Catholic knows better; and has heard different, a thousand times, from a thousand homilies. For Chaput to simply drop this, one of the main contentions of the Church, because it is now inconvenient to his legal defence, is rather shameful.

So Chaput's main contention is not honest. And, if we have the opportunity, we will review a dozen other major flaws, in this current attempt by elements of the Church, to evade the law. And 2) for priests to defend, in effect, their own pederasty.

So that in effect, we will outline a complete legal case, against this attempt to evade law, and justice.

Richard says:
"He did have a reason for what he did, a narrow-minded and venal set of reasons that sent the clear message that this leader cares far more about rigid doctrine and structural integrity of the organization than he cares about PEOPLE. For all you conservative, hard core true believers, how is that approach working for the Church these days?"


Richard, if these are serious questions, then here are serious answers:


I personally witnessed Archbishop Chaput's words and actions during the Columbine school shooting tragedy of 1999. I can assure you that he cares as much about actual people as he does about the doctrinal and structural integrity of the body of the Church.


Jesus walked away from some ministry situations - even whole towns - instead of sticking around. Mark 6:5 for example. Then he went further and told his disciples to do the same in Matthew 10:14. It's worth looking at why he did this.


As for how that approach is working out, well, if you mean numbers - a lot of people who don't like Catholic teaching are leaving and a lot of people who are drawn by Catholic teaching are joining the Church. Religious orders which think the Church is all messed up are dying out, and Orders and Seminaries which profess fidelity to historical Catholic beliefs are doubling in size roughly every three years. And thousands still are Baptised every Easter. So numbers wise, pretty good.


But numbers wise was never the goal anyway. Christ taught about the Eucharist and lost quite a few that night. We're told a third of the Angels saw the Big Picture and opted for the Long Fall anyway. And to finish my response, we're being persecuted for holding the line - which Jesus said in Matt 5:11 would happen and that it would be a *blessed* thing.

Titus:

The standing of the Vatican/Holy See, as a "state," is legally questionable. In part, because it was 1) only partially established by a questionable deal with Mussolini, in the Lateran Treaty of 1929; to resolve the "Roman Question." Second 2) America and a few other countries began to formally extend only SOME elements of statehood to the Vatican, in the time of Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush II?).

While in any case, 3) if the Vatican IS a state, then priests in America, are unregistered foreign agents, etc..

Sybil poses a good question to Beth (about accountability): "Do we really believe that?" (about bishop's accountability to the Lord). I would suggest a better variant would be: "Do the bishops really believe that?" A large percentage? A small percentage? Because that accountability goes much further than the abused and alms: The scandal created has doubtlessly kept many potentially-faithful from the Church and helped "the world" separate many weaker brothers from a Mother that is meant to nurish and strengthen her children. A scandal-ridden Bride is little help (nor glory) to the Bridesgroom. St. John Christostom ("The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops") pray for them.

Are there immortal souls at stake? The Church has not acted as though there were for some decades now. Not even the Popes. Not even the truly excellent Archbishop Chaput--one of the brightest beacons of hope for our (immediate) future.

Because if there were immortal souls at stake, then each bishop must rise like a lion to defend the souls: with both immediacy and directness. The good of souls outweighs even the (new) highest principle of our faith: collegiality (which, by the way, is not even a Catholic word).

Do they not believe there are souls? Or are they universalists? Or are they utterly heartless? There really is no fourth possibility, is there?

I totally agree that secular terms are inadequate: a priest is not a mere "employee"; and neither Pope nor Bishop are a mere CEO. This is where I disagree: the care for souls is a HIGHER level of responsibility and accountability--not a lower level.

And so, in the past, if a priest molested a kid, that was ok, but if he stole a penny from the collection he was gone in an instant. That has changed, but why? It was not concern for souls, but for lawyers.

But still today, if a priest or religious is "just" endangering souls in the name of the Church through the teaching of blatant error...well, MAYBE they'll actually do something in a decade or so...but more likely not.

We now have a visitation of nuns: over due by a few decades. But what is the point: there is nothing to investigate--dissenters TELL us that they don't believe that the Church is who she claims to be! And why hasn't anything been done about the Jesuits? Why not do something, say, next month?

The Church is a monarchy: if there are limitations imposed by cannon law, cannon law could be changed tomorrow. That is, if immortal souls were more important than irenicism.

To Richard: substitute your term "rigid doctrine" for "accurate doctrine" (i.e., "truth"). Yes, that's the whole point of Christianity: the truth will set you free. Love, unanchored to the truth, is a false love...or a love of falsity.

Ya know I'm pretty appalled at the level of Bigotry/Hatred aimed at the Catholic Church in this combox. From accusing the archbishop of "blowing up" your church to calling his words a "horse blanket", it makes me wonder why in the world the Lord God Almighty puts up with such insolence/ignorance. Thank Him that His Mercy is greater than mine!
Good thing this article wasn't written by a faith that teaches retaliation.

brettongarcia: "Chaput is therefore a very, very, very political, conservative Republican archbishop. But in his involvement in politics, isn't Chaput following too much, the 'traditions of men', over the Tradition of the Church? It would appear so."

But that is not, in fact, the case. Besides the more obvious flaw of ignoring the existence of pro-abortion Republicans and pro-life Democrats — few in number, but not absent — the Tradition of the Church does not forbid political involvement, although canon law does now forbid clergy and religious to be directly employed in political offices. In fact, Christians have a right and duty to exercise their religious beliefs as part of participation in the community, which implies political involvement to some degree. That's not just being a good Christian, that's being a good citizen. Moreover, the moral teaching of the Church, especially as brought forth by the bishops as the foremost Christians of the community, has always had some degree of political implication.

Do Bishops and Catholics not have to follow the Pope? This is on the face of it, obviously incorrect. First, a) Catholics can remember countless homilies in Church, telling us to follow, obey, the Pope, of course. So that it is clear that the Church in fact DOES tell us to follow central leadership; the Vatican, the Pope. Though b) some current documents give some relative independence to the Bishops, still, the Pope is "first" among equals; giving him central authority. While indeed, c) the Pope is said to be often, rather uniquely "infallible." And therefore, as having more authority that other bishops. While d) the Popes are considered heirs of the mantle of St. Peter, vicar of Christ and first and central of God's apostles.

I'm afraid that Abp. Chaput was being more literal than you care to admit. Yes, we're TOLD we have to obey the Pope and the bishops. However, outside of public and formal excommunication, the Pope and bishops have little compulsive power ... and even excommunication can backfire. So there's little the episcopate can do to enforce its will; otherwise, you'd never hear of groups like Catholics For Choice or Rainbow Sash. And excommunication doesn't sever the relationship between the individual Catholic and the Church, so it doesn't fit under the paradigm of "firing".

Furthermore, counsel for the plaintiff may have to substantiate more than just "central direction". Outside the actual fact of appointments, the Vatican does little else to satisfy the model of employer-employee relations. The Vatican does not pay the bishops; it does not provide their benefits; it does not provide their livings ... there are many things involved in the most basic employer-employee arrangement that simply aren't present in the relationship between the Pope and the bishop.

"The standing of the Vatican/Holy See, as a "state," is legally questionable. In part, because it was 1) only partially established by a questionable deal with Mussolini, in the Lateran Treaty of 1929; to resolve the "Roman Question." Second 2) America and a few other countries began to formally extend only SOME elements of statehood to the Vatican, in the time of Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush II?)."

I see you got your legal training from Richard Dawkins. While cutting a deal with Mussolini's government might — might — have been morally questionable, its legal status is not. And extending diplomatic relations is a de facto recognition of statehood; there need not be any other elements present for that fact to be recognized. As they say down here in Texas, "That dog won't hunt."

"... 3) [I]f the Vatican IS a state, then priests in America[] are unregistered foreign agents, etc."

Spoken like a true anti-Catholic bigot. There is a valid legal and philosophical distinction between being an agent of a foreign government and being a member of a world-wide religious organization. The fact that the Pope is the recognized leader of both is irrelevant. Again, the priests don't receive their compensation, benefits, livings or other factors of employment from Vatican City (the political organization, don'tcha know); in fact, with the exception of certain members of religious orders and some of the priests of Rome, they're not even "hired" by the Pope.

While Abp. Chaput's arguments aren't completely persuasive, your counter-arguments are just as disingenuous. The Pope-bishop relationship won't fit into the employer-employee model as it actually occurs in the real world. no matter how simple you try to draw it in theory.

The First Vatican Council. in its dogmatic constitution "Pastor Aeternus", teaches:

"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
...

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.

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."

While Abp. Chaput does not explicitly contradict this teaching, he certainly does not let anyone suspect that it exists. A more reasonable line of defence would be to say that it is impossible for the Holy See to exercise supervision over the entire Catholic church, and that the Pope can only be reasonably be held to be at fault for failing to deal adequately with cases that are actually brought to him for judgment. This defence would however be hard to apply in the sexual abuse cases, because these cases involved the universal disobedience of Catholic bishops to the canon law that required that sexual abuse of minors by priests be punished. This universal disobedience is something that could not have escaped the knowledge of the Holy See, and that the Holy See had an obligation to correct; but it did not do so.

I'm not clear on the legal issues but I presume the idea that each diocese is its own separate legal entity is correct.

The issue here, though, (if this case is like some of the others that have come up) involves the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF Vatican office claimed "jurisdiction" over child sex abuse cases and insisted that inquiries into allegations within the Catholic Church be channeled to and centralized within the CDF. That at least is my understanding based on reading the English translations of the letters under controversy.

Joseph Ratzinger's defenders use the plausible argument that both he as well as the CDF are extremely busy and didn't necessarily have time to promptly respond to allegations sent its way. The problem with this argument is that it was Ratzinger himself who apparently insisted that allegations be routed through him and his office. You can't declare yourself the sole authority on certain matters and then excuse yourself later by saying you were too busy to actually pay any attention to those matters.

Whether this is relevant to a U.S. court, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer and this depends on whether American courts following common law principles think that Vatican officials at the CDF had a duty to child abuse victims and were negligent in fulfilling that duty or whether American courts would claim jurisdiction over those officials.

Having read Charles Chaput's letters in Denver Papers for many years, I find the Archbishops representations that clergy aren't employees of the Vatican, so false they stand up and howl like coyotes.

Chaput is a major fund raiser for the Vatican. He loves the limelight, and seems spend alot of his time trying to get promoted to the position of Cardinal, like his predecessor Stafford. Chaput's career has shown him to be incapable of independent thought. He attacks gays, children of lesbian couples, liberals of any kind, squashes dissent, opposes abortion, contraception, or attacks enemies at the snap of the Pope's finger. His letters reference all the Vatican rules, regulations and encyclicals verbatim. If that ain't contol: WHAT IS?

Should the Vatican wish to plead that Diocese are independent families of believers..then lets' stop appointing bishops and let the People elect them. About 10 years ago, a lay group tried to get a petition signed by Catholics in Denver that was addressed to the Pope . The petition requested a change in cannon law to allow clergy to marry, and bishops to be elected. Chaput screamed heresy, & banned such lay groups from setting foot in HIS CHURCHES, He wrote letters to parishes and order priests to call police to arrest anyone on parish property with that petition. for trespass. I was one of the people Chaput threatened.

The Archbishop is out to protect the Vatican & Holy See no matter how wrong Josef Ratzinger is in any given situation. The bishop will stop at nothing to defend the Pope, who he sees as a fuedal lord. Past actions, censorship, and propaganda in the Catholic Register show Chaput, to be a man with an iron fist, hidden in a silk glove. Yes Chaput is an official of the Vatican and an employee. His actions speak the truth.

The Pope is certainly not a CEO, but I think the good Archbishop understates things a bit.

According to Catholi theology, the Pope has jurisdiction over EVERY Christian in the church. The Pope COULD, if he WANTED to, depose EVERY Catholic bishop and replace them overnight. The only thing stopping him is his own tact and moral sense - legally, according to the Church's own doctrine, the Pope had EVERY God-given right, these past several decades, to remove EVERY SINGLE liberal or mediocre bishop.

Weakland and Mahony, anyone?

Thank the Lord, Pope Ratzinger seems to take the governing element of the Papacy a LOT more seriously than his laissez-faire.

Really, folks, let's not be disingenuous. Let's either face up to our CATHOLIC doctrine of the Papacy, or just quit the charade and join either the Anglican Communion or the Orthodox Church.

The Pope is NOT simply "first among equals."

This makes for interesting stuff. By the same analogy the US President is the CEO of the USA. Does that mean that he and previous presidents can now be brought before the american courts for the sexual abuse that occured and continues in schools around the states and that the 20 year limitations rule will also be waived?

I understand that the schooling equivalent of covering up sexual abuse is called "pass the trash" a system whereby sexual abusers are quietly shifted on to the next school and nothing is said. The numbers I have seen published suggest that 290 000 children were abused in the equivalent period to the churchs abuse and currently within New York City on average a child is abused in a school each day of the year. So when is the CEO of the USA going to fess up to the abuse that is happening on his watch that is continually left unattended? or are we that blind in believing that it only happens in the church?

the bottom line is that sexual abuse is wrong wherever it is happening. 85% of children are abused by people close to and known to the family - its time all parties including the President are brought to book - if thats what it takes to stop the rot.

JDD – 26th May, 2:58pm – said: “And to finish my response, we're being persecuted for holding the line - which Jesus said in Matt 5:11 would happen and that it would be a *blessed* thing.”

I have noticed this now in a number of comments on this web-site, over a period of time: the seemingly absurd devaluation of the word ‘persecution’. Perhaps some people in America ‘revile’ Catholics and the Catholic Church. Perhaps some people in America ‘say all manner of evil against’ Catholics and the Catholic Church. Perhaps the Catholic Church is even being sued. This may be so. But to call any of this a ‘persecution’ strikes me as the height of temerity, and indeed, a culpable ‘forgetting’ of what real persecution of a religion or of religious people actually looks like. (Usually it involves a great deal of blood and violence). Christians were persecuted by the Romans, amongst others. The Jews have been persecuted by Christians, among others. But whatever is happening to Catholics and the Catholic Church in America today is most certainly *not* a persecution – and to call it so is disingenuous and, it seems to me, a disgraceful and immoral twisting of a weighty word.

To Arnold: I was just trying (perhaps too flippantly) to ask what the connection was between the perpetrator of the act and what was essentially an administratro (the CDF) "a thousand miles away." Mea culpa.

Two more thoughts (hopefully not too cryptic):

"The Church imposes nothing; she only proposes." John Paul the Great

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable." - G.K.Chesterton

Of course the anology could be extended - after all the pope is the head of an independent state.

So too is President Obama. So why stop at sexual abuse? How about the coercive enforcement of so call "reporoductive health care" or more commonly known as abortion - the mass killing of nations unborn. Certainly President Obama and Hilary Clinton are pushing this "right" onto nations around the world - Uganda and Kenya being cases in point. Why should citizens of these countries not sue President Obama in their courts for the genocide and economic loss that is perpetarted by the enforcement of "reporoductive health care"?

I'm sure lawyers charging contingency based fees could have a field day with such actions. After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

A lot of anti-Catholics have their heart set on the Vatican being sued, and so you see a lot of twisting of legalities in com boxes like here to try and justify it.

Unfortunately, and while I have an enduring respect for Archbishop Chaput, when the name 'Catholic' is appended to an entity (especially a Diocese, school, hospital) the intended public perception is that the entity is related to the Universal Church in ethic and practice and that its employees subscribe to and abide by that ethic.
Parsing matters too closely gives the appearance of dodging responsibility or eschewing action, i.e. 'Am I my brother's keeper' can easily be reworked to say 'Shall I interfere in a Diocese if it is not mine'.

It is so obvious that the pope or Vatican is not the employer of bishops.
Here in Australia, we ask the queen of England to appoint a governor general. He represents the queen here for us. I believe there are other countries that ask the queen to do so for them as well.
We do that because we trust her to appoint a politically impartial person who will help give our country stability etc. We usually suggest a few or even just one candidate and she usually, but not always agrees to appoint as we suggest. We PAY the queen to do so, and we pay her representative. They are both in that sense our employees.

Bishops ecclesiastically speaking are very similar in their role, but even more independent. The Australian bishops ask the pope to appoint someone to represent God (not the pope) in our diocese. WE PAY the pope and the Vatican to do so, through Peters pence etc to cover administration costs. WE PAY the pope to provide guidelines for appointing good bishops (remember this is what St Peter does in Acts after Judas suicides), and guidelines for how good bishops should operate.

The pope is the employee of Catholic dioceses, not around the other way.
Therefore, I guess a diocese could sue the pope, or choose to no longer employ his services, if we are not satisfied with them. This is effectively what Constantinople did a thousand years ago, and what the dioceses of England did during the reformation.

Really, we are a family with a bishop acting as the head of the family, representing Christ, in each dioceses. The pope is just the head of the church that St Peter lead in Rome, and that’s why the leader of every diocese (bishop) independently chooses to follow the example set by Rome. God has promised us that that is the best bet.
While it is true that a bishop follows canon law set in Rome, that doesn’t make Rome their employer.
The US federal government sets up lots of laws about employment, but that doesn’t make everyone Fed employees.
If following canon law makes a bishop an employee of the Vatican, then following road rules in the US makes every person who does so for financial gain an employee of the government.

If we are to follow the logic of this lawsuit, then shouldn't the federal and state government also be sued for the sexual abuse cases of individual teachers????

Why not just sell the First Things url and turn the whole thing over to the enemies of the Church, the secularists, and the atheists? Want a nice dose of Obama hatred and right-wing craziness, including wistful longing for armed rebellion? Well, you've got your Gateway Pundit, where clearly no comments are moderated. Want atheists, gibbering with hatred for anything holy? Check out the First Thoughts comboxes.

And now this, guaranteed to bring out comments like these. If I wanted to read Vox Nova, I'd read Vox Nova. It's all so damned depressing.

Such a swirl of ideologies!

One thing has grown in amazement for me as I age towards retirement. Most others continue to fade, including those I was once intensely passionate about. In 2000 years, in spite of some horrendous popes, the office has survived. Even the worst of popes didn't attempt to turn that office into something else, even while milking the office for personal gain.

No, the pope is not a CEO. He is a custodian, the kind with a broom and dust pan. He is the one with prime responsibility for the legacy given us at the beginning. He will be held accountable for that legacy as well as for his personal shortcomings. I understand why Cardinal Ratzinger didn't want that weight. I also understand why he acquiesced.

And yet, we still call for a warrior-king, one who fights for "our side" as if "our side" mattered. I reread Matthew 16:24-28 and ask myself, "Do I believe it?"

The power conveyed to Catholic priests and bishops is that of acting "in persona Christi" in offering the eternally present sacrifice of Christ. They are sacramentally "clothed" to do what no person could do except in the Spirit. They are instruments of the Holy Spirit in administering the other sacraments, such as Confirmation. Dr. John Haas has made a distinction between these powers and the moral (and we might add, intellectual) development of a human being. These are certainly guided but not accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The man who is ordained must arduously struggle for "right reason" in these areas. All American Catholics, including the clergy, are citizens of the United States of America and subject to all laws relating to civic affairs. Their only recourse, when laws are offensive to conscience, is civil disobedience with acceptance of legal penalities. An American priest or bishop is in a covenanted relationship with the universal Church. Acceptance of Her teachings, when spoken ex cathedra, is required. Those who disagree may and should depart. However, in matters of administration of the dioceses (as Vatican II taught), bishops have authority of their own. The Church can be compared to a family, one in which the father and mother are invested with authority. No child is expected to obey a parent who teaches wrong behavior. Neither would a bishop of the Catholic Church act in such a manner. The legal system will run its course. Perhaps the Church will be grievously wounded. We have the model for how to respond to such treatment in our Lord. If it is of God, it will survive and flourish; indeed, if utterly shattered, it will rise again. Pope Benedict has prescribed the proper course for Catholics at this time: Penance; prayer and penance, "hearts contrite and humble, O God, you will not spurn".

To address a few points raised here:


1) The fact is, there is not an exact analogy, between suing the Pope and Vatican for crimes, and suing Obama for alleged moral wrongs. First, a) as I argued here, the Pope is NOT fully a head of state. And then too b) if it is a state committing crimes against citizens of the US, then there ARE means of redress here; in the case of a tort by one state, against the citizens of another state.

c) In any case, the Pope is not like Obama, in that the major problem is that the Vatican is accused not of moral wrong, but a CRIME. In effect, the Pope and Vatican it seems, directed a policy, through the CDF, of ignoring child-mollesting priests, or whitewashing them. More specifically, what the Vatican therefore is charged with here, is covering up for CRIMINAL OFFENSES; crimes. For breaking the law. Whereas, Obama, whether you agree with the law or not, is following the law of the land; Roe v. Wade, etc..

Did the Vatican however, direct criminal law-breaking, and with deliberate intent? In fact, the Church explicitly tells Catholics to commit crimes; as follows. When it asserted in the Catechism (signed by the Pope), that you should not follow laws you do not agree with (Catechism, 2nd ed. c. 2000 AD; sec. 2242.

Here note, the Church is explicitly ordering followers not to obey the laws, the government, if those laws conflict with the Church. THUS THE CHURCH IS DIRECTING CATHOLICS TO COMMIT CRIMES. As the Church does, here, in this passage from the Catechism:

"The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order" (the moral order, as defined by the Church; "Catechism of the Catholic Church," 2nd ed. c. 2000 AD, # 2242, page 541).

This passage would seem to definitively prove the lawyers' claims: that the Church centrally directs Catholics to commit crimes. (Though next we need people to show they directed specifically, the cover-up of sexual predation by priests; as however Ratzinger's CDF apparently did, c. 2001).



That's the main point.

Next, regarding especially Tony Layne’s remarks: Tony, by now you know as well as I do, how dishonest Chucky, “Cheesy” Kaput’s arguments are. Why defend a bad archbishop, who is using dishonest arguments, to defend pederasty? Why not join the good, honest people looking for a better church? Consider your own arguments, which seem influenced by following this hypocritical bishop, all too fully, in his sophistry.

I note that Chaput is very political. To be sure, first of all: 2) We ARE certainly allowed to enter politics … but not to let political opinions warp our perception of theology, of God. While clearly, Cheesy Chuck’s arguments do that. See my book draft, on the “Pro Life Heresy: Or God Never Said, Vote Republican.” There I show that bishops like Cheesy here, put an heretical, dis “proportionate” emphasis, only on the “one issue” of Republican abortion, say; while they systematically deny other more important issues, that would support Democrats. Thus disobeying Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s 2004 memo, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.” And Cardinal McCarrick’s 2007 injunction against “one issue” Catholicism, that “tells us how to vote.”

3) Yes, we are “TOLD” to obey the Pope; while now we see that command was hypocritical and false. Do you intend that observation of inconsistency and hypocrisy, as a DEFENCE of Kaput and the Church?!

4) The mere exchange of diplomats, is not a de facto, full acknowledgement of the "full" statehood of the Vatican. Actually, only partial recognition was extended to the Vatican; and that, only very, very recently; in the time of Reagan and Bush II. While, if you actually read the relevant documents, you will find that recognition was qualified.

5) My ideas, that the Vatican is not a full state, are not from Dawkins; I never read Dawkins; I can think for myself.

6) Tony, you often contradict yourself: are you a lawyer, eager to say whatever contradictory things you think might work? Recall that Jesus said, “Woe to thee, lawyers.” On the one hand, Tony, you insist that OF COURSE the Vatican is a state; but when that claim is inconvenient, since members of a state follow it dutifully, then you turn completely around next, and say that of course it is a not a state, but a religion.

7) Tony, if we are NOT supposed to follow the Bishops like loyal employees, then … don’t continue all-too faithfully following Archbishop Chucky, “Cheesy” Kaput, into the “pit” of his hypocrisy, sophistries, and inconsistencies.



8) To everyone: the Bible often warned about bad, "false" things in every element of religion, and even Christianity; "false prophets," scriptures, false gospels, bad things in even Christian churches (Rev. 2-3). Each of us should therefore, learn to become a far, far more honest and straightforward person, than the dishonest, false prophets, and the bad, “false” priests and religious leaders that we see all around us today. We should try to be better than the false, bad priests, false religious leaders that, after all, the Bible itself, Jesus himself, warned about, so long ago.

"I understand that the schooling equivalent of covering up sexual abuse is called "pass the trash" a system whereby sexual abusers are quietly shifted on to the next school and nothing is said."

If you have reliable, documented evidence that this is going on anywhere, please pass the evidence along to the relevant District Attorney's or Attorney General's office. Most states have "must report" laws that require school administrators to immediately report any information they have about child sex abuse to the police. Failure to do so not only puts one at risk of being sued but also subjects one to fines or jail time. At the time of the Cardinal Law scandal, Massachusetts had a law requiring people like day care workers or teachers to report sex abuse but not priests. I believe the law has changed by now to include clergy.

The point that people are avoiding here is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith centralized all investigations and disciplinary proceedings within the Vatican. To hold the diocese responsible for sex abuse seems a bit unfair -- they were only following orders in keeping sex abuse allegations under wraps while waiting for the CDF investigation. Responsibility and power go hand in hand -- if the Vatican wants authority over internal investigations involving priests committing sex crimes, it should also be held responsible for doing something about the problem.

Whether Vatican officials have duties under American tort law and whether they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction is something I don't know as a non-lawyer. At the same time, it seems like an abrogation of responsibility to say the Vatican cannot be held accountable for failing to dismiss a child-abusing priest when it explicitly asserted the sole authority to do so.

The Liabilities of the Vatican:
The Church as a Centrally-Administered Organization;
Proposing the Excommunication of Archbishop Chaput, for
Denying Apostolic Succession, Papal Infalliblity, and the Primary of the Pope


Is the idea that legal officials should characterize or define the Church, as a sort of corporate structure, "revolutionary"? In fact, it is not. First of all, the courts have the traditional right to define such matters. In part, this is a civil/criminal proceeding; and traditionally, we do not let defendants, criminals, define themselves according to their own desires.

To be sure though, we might listen indeed to many things the Church says about itself: Chaput uses a fortunate self-description: "family." This is fortunate, because it strengthens after all, the many of the legal proceedings that seek to prosecute the Church under RICO, anti-crime boss laws; under the theory that the Church is much like a racketeering, Mafia "family." Centrally controlled by a godfather-like Pope; who (probably) ordered his subordinate Mafia don Bishops, the members of his crime "family," to shut up and keep quiet, about the "scandal" of abuse; and then to bribe and threaten victims to keep quiet too.

Indeed, to define the Church as an essentially corporate entity, we don't need to presume to define the Church ourselves; we CAN let it speak for itself. The very word "corp"orate, means "body"; the Church has long said it is "the" unitary body of Christ.

But more relevant and directly, here: the Church has plainly said for many centuries, that it is centrally directed, by the Vatican, by the Pope; who, the Church itself has long said as one of its core principles, is centrally directed by the Pope. Indeed, the entire authority of the Church, it has often argued itself, comes from the central authority of the Pope; who himself is to be regarded as authoritative, according to the classic argument of "Apostolic Succession." Which insists that only the Pope in fact, has full authority; which he got when Jesus gave a special authority to St. Peter (Mat. 16); and then, the Church argues, that unique and central authority was passed on, by "succession," to Peter's designated successors, the next popes.

Therefore, the central authority of the Vatican, the Pope, is in fact the core, central, Traditional, famous "Apostolic Succession" assertion of the Church; the very basis of its claim to presume to tell us all how to act and behave.

Indeed, it is all too easy to find thousands of examples of the Church ordering priests and the faithful, the Bishops, to follow it, in essentially the same relationship of employees to superiors. Above, particularly, Lamont devastatingly quotes Vatican I, "Pastor Aeternus." Which is in fact, a definitive, smoking gun.

Pastor Aeternus is so conclusive and damning, that it is worth quoting again, at length:

"Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to SUBMIT TO THIS POWER BY THE DUTY OF HIERARCHIAL SUBORDINATION and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
...

Since the Roman PONTIFF, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, GOVERNS THE WHOLE CHURCH, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an AUTHORITY SUPERIOR to the Roman pontiff.

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." ("Pastor Aeternis).


In his useful letter, above, Mr. Lamont is too modest: the major Vatican directive he quotes, absolutely and directly contradicts Chaput, and his implication that the bishops are not centrally obedient to the Church. Or to put it another way, Chaput goes against the Vatican.

What can be done about this rebellion, by Chaput, against the Church? For that matter, the very document just cited, demands that Chaput, for rebelling against/denying that authority, should now be simply declared "anathema."

. . .


Are bishops, priests, exactly like employees? Can we thus fire them? It is 1) hard to translate all the many various traditions of an ancient, 2,000-year old institution like the Church, directly into modern language, like "employer/employee." But 2) it seems clear enough, that the relation is essentially the same. Indeed, priests even wear a uniform, in effect; and 3) they get their directives, from centralized authority, the Pope in Rome. Though 4) Bishops are allowed SOME individual discretion, so are regional managers, offices, subsidiaries often, in modern businesses. In fact, in many cases the Church does disburse funds, payments, to churches, Bishops outside of Rome. But if local bishops raise their own pay from local donations, still, local dioceses are exactly like many employees and regional offices, when they often raise their own pay, from their own local performance, local revenue, or nonprofit contributions.

Does the Pope "fire" his workers, and bad Bishops? What would it be like, say, if Archbishop Chaput was “fired,” as he should be? In Church equivalents, he should be excommunicated, anathematized, and laicized. For deliberately, studiously denying and disobeying central directives and principles of the Church and the Pope. While 5) excommunication for example, does not quite entirely sever the relationship between the Church employer and the priestly employee, in that an honorary relationship remains, in effect, various operations like excommunication, anathematization, laicization, effectively take the priestly employee out of uniform; and remove his authorization to represent the Church publically. In effect, "firing" would be the modern equivalent.

So in sum, though the Church is a 2,000-year old institution, for whom it modern terms are difficult to apply, overall, roughly, an "employer/employee" relationship, hiring and firing, does in fact seem to apply well enough.

. . .

While for that matter, specifically, Archbishop Chaput should probably be summarily “fired” - excommunicated, anathematized, execrated, and laicized; removed from his active Archbishop's position. For deliberately, dishonestly, scandalously going against central, canonical principles of the Church. For denying first of all, Apostolic Succession, and the authority of the Pope.

The Pope is a spiritual leader. As Fr. Schall makes clear in "The Regensburg Lecture" no one, repeat no one, is empowered to direct any person to act against right reason. Should orders come from a Vatican source to disobey right laws of one's nation, that order would be and should be understood as mistaken and, therefore, ignored. In time legal power lies with the state and its authorities. Scripture records the actions of the State in relation to Christ; they will act again in relation to his Church. In the end God will decide the question of right and wrong in this matter; in the very long run, that is.

brettongarcia-

Two brothers worked for their father. One day, the younger brother decided enough was enough. He disobeyed his father, treated him like he was dead, took one-third of the father's wealth and left home to sin freely in the world. After frittering away all his money, he found himself living with demons in their excrement. He returned home and begged for his father to have him as a servant. His father refused and instead opened his arms and threw a huge party celebrating his son's return.

Remember the other brother? He stood outside, in the field with his loyal men. He refused to come into the house. When the father went outside, his older son called him a fool and said, "I've been faithful to you for all these years while he (his brother) has disrespected you and our family. So what do you do? You throw him a party. You give him your nicest things to wear. You kill the prized calf we were going to sacrifice next month. You never throw any parties for me and I never asked for any, but I'm not going to participate in this foolishness."

The father looked at him and tells him, "Son, all I have is yours. Come inside and be happy. Join us in the celebration, because your brother was lost, but now he is found. He was dead, but now he is alive again."

Brettongarcia, I'm asking you to come inside. Please come inside.

And so much tautology masquerading as argument.

brettongarcia is right about one thing. Christians have been executed as criminals since the Crucifixion for disobeying the secular authorities and refusing to renounce their faith. But I don't think that that was what he was referring to.

(By long tradition, using CAPITALS on the internet is not emphasis but yelling.)

I am astounded by the effort and time people spend to spew out their hatred toward the Catholic Church and Her clergy.

Does anyone here actually know real logic? Or just a few irrelevant toss-off lines, to try to negate, destroy all Logic and Reason?

My syllogism is not quite a tautology; all syllogisms though, ressemble tautologies, in that they prove what is contained implicitly, just in the meaning of the original terms, propositions.

Most of you constantly, dishonestly misuse reason, logic. For example: no one is enforced to act against "right reason"; that sounds good, like the Pope never forces anyone to do anytyhing. But it leaves open this possiblity: some might be enforced to act against a "reason" that the Vatican degrees wrong, or not right.

"Come, let us reason together." The Bible warned that the whole world, even those who think their are following Christ, would be found "deceived," even in their religion, by a "false" religious leader; even a "false Christ." To escape these false religious leaders, we are supposed to "test everything" in part with reason; "test everything." And so far, your religion does not pass the test.

Consider: today you are 1) using arguments which many of you consciously know are deceitful; 2) to defend a bishop attacking the core values of the Church; 3) in order to defend Pederasy.

It is clear to me that you are "blind"; "under a strong delusion" or illusion, just as Jesus warned.

Step inside for a moment; let's reason together for a while. You have been deceived. In your vanity, you think that you and your idea of religion is perfect and true; but that is just your collective Vanity and Pride.

Come inside. Be modest; not dismissive. And learn to use words, logic, honestly, first of all.

brettongarcia

Thanks for not yelling.

When words are used to overwhelm, I much prefer calm thoughts, though I am not yet good at it. When piqued, I attempt sharp satire. Then when a dialogue is established, I attempt logic. As is said here on the internet, YMMV.

brettongarcia,
There is amazing breakthroughs in therapy these days. I suggest you find some. You got some deep rooted issues that need to be addressed.

themike:

Like? Otherwise, you're just name-calling.

To be fair to Archbishop Chaput, I don't think he was ever suggesting that the Pope's position as Peter's sucessor was in question or doubt.

What he was suggestign is tha the Church is fuanmentally different than a corporation becaue the "Church is much closer to a confederation of families than a modern corporation."

He also notes:

"Every bishop in the United States has a filial love for the Holy Father and a fraternal respect for his brother bishops. But these familylike words—filial, fraternal, brother—are not simply window dressing. They go to the heart of how the Catholic community understands and organizes itself—and, more important, to how the Church actually conducts herself, guided by her own theology and canon law."

As I pointed out above, the legal status of each diocese is in fact a corporation. That cannot be denied. The filial arrangement and organization of the Church, however, is not distinct from how well run secular businesses or "modern corporations" are run and is not inconsistent with being a corporation for legal purposes.

Businesses routinely treat employees as family members and mentor younger employees, prividing them with training, friendship, counseling and emotional support in very much the same sense that the church itself is filial. There are many ways to live the Gospel in the modern corporate world.

Corporations are not all greedy bottom line driven survival of the fittest organizations any more than churches are criminal enterpises where money is embezzled and the flock is treated as sexual prey. Modern corporations include The Red Cross, founded by Clara Barton, for example.

How groups of people chose to engage each other is not dictated by the legal structure of their organization. Here is where the Archbishop is wrong. Nothing prevents a "confederation of families" from legally operating as a corporation. For tax and liability reasons there may be good reasons to do so. Swim clubs, to boy scouts all choose to incorporate. Each Diocese in the United States has chosen to do so.

Once you've chosen to take advantage of the corporate legal structure, the fact that you internally operate as a "confederation of families" is irrelevant to the court and the legal system.

Joseph McFaul:

While it may be true that the legal structure of the dioceses are that of corporations, they of course differ in that their "parent" is a foreign sovereign entity. It's more complicated by the fact that it's a religion whose practices can be defended by freedom of religion arguments. We can't expect the Pope, a foreign head of state, to agree to appear in the courtroom of some random American judge. If we go down that road we are opening ourselves up to, for example, our President being subpoenaed to appear before the Supreme Court of France. In this legalistic world it is a bad idea to challenge sovereign immunity and even the fairly liberal Obama Justice Dept agrees with this one. It is very dangerous to set precedents expecting the Pope to surrender to foreign court decisions; very dangerous for Catholicism in the world and opens the Church up to persecution by countries that are looking for a way to attack her.

Mark said: "The point that people are avoiding here is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith centralized all investigations and disciplinary proceedings within the Vatican. To hold the diocese responsible for sex abuse seems a bit unfair -- they were only following orders in keeping sex abuse allegations under wraps".

The centralization you speak of occurred in 2001 at the earliest. The vast majority of the sexual-abuse crimes that have made for this sickening scandal occurred in the 1980s or earlier.

CDF took over these cases precisely to stop the practice of suppressing them at the diocesan level. At the same time as his office took over management of these cases, Cardinal Ratzinger created a new "fast-track" laicization process for abusive clergy and significantly extended the Church's internal statute of limitations for this sort of case.

So what exactly are you accusing CDF & Ratzinger of, here?

The centralization you speak of occurred in 2001 at the earliest.

Even before the May 2001 memo, Ratzinger and the CDF still had substantial responsibility for investigating and prosecuting child sex abuse cases. This is apparent in both the Marcial Maciel and Lawrence Murphy cases.

I looked through the O'Bryan case and it seems to rely instead on an even earlier order given back in 1962 that mandates secrecy under some circumstances for abuse allegations.

As to whether priests and bishops are employees of the Vatican, that is addressed in a Court of Appeals decision on the case:

"As noted above, under Kentucky law, this inquiry focuses on the degree of control exercised by the employer over the individual or individuals in question. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege facts that demonstrate that the Holy See exercised a significant degree of control over the bishops and archbishops accused of having committed the tortious acts in question. Taking these allegations as true, plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the employee element of the tortious activity exception."

As to the connection between the Vatican and the abuse cases [quoting the O'Bryan filing]:

"[T]he Holy See has mandated that all allegations of childhood sexual abuse be kept under a cloak of complete secrecy, even if that secrecy violated state, federal, or international law. In March, 1962, the Holy See privately circulated a document containing a set of procedural norms for dealing with the solicitation of sex in confession, clergy sex with minors, homosexual relations, and bestiality."

Ben and Lake, and other apologists:


The Church as a whole - including even the CDF and Ratzinger - long covered up one case after another, the press alleges; until finally they were outed by the press, and the Church at last had to do something, c. 2001. But indeed, the Church had sinned for a long time: for 2,000 years the Church has been assuring us it is perfect and "holy"; though it has always known privately about what even Ratzinger now calls (roughtly) he "sins of" or "sins in the Church." So we are looking at 2,000 years of cover-up.

What about the more recent timeline of Ratzinger and the CDF specifically? In the last month or so, the NY Times and the National Catholic Reporter have published time-lines of the various sins of the Church (as Ratzinger himself now typifies them) regarding Pederasty-gate. To add to this recent timeline, we note there there were centuries, millennia of denial. Only by c. 2001 were the CDF and Rat at last dealing with this; but only after centuries of denial; and only after having been outed, obviously, by the press.

Today, everyone makes the Church out to be totally forthright in dealing with this; as it began to be, belatedly, by 2001. But is this an example of the Church's sterling record and forthrightness? By 2001 of course, the cat was already out of the bag; everybody in the world already knew about pederast priests, in spite of constant church cover ups; and not thanks to the Church, but only thanks to diligent investigatory reporting by the press.

To finally begin to act in 2001, was no great virtue or strech; the cat was long out of the bag; the press had dragged the Church into the light kicking and screaming, after 2,000 years of cover ups; or in Biblical language, "whitewashing."

But now: 1) what about those 2,000 years, before the Church finally acted?

Or specifically, 2) regarding Ratzinger's more recent culpability, before 2001?

The Times etc. have noted at least one prominent case of pederast priests in Ratzinger's disocese in Germany, that Ratzinger knew about, but that he himself failed to deal with, while he was a Bishop in Germany. It 3) is then also reported that such cases were taken over by the CDF at some point; but even then, the CDF, before and for some time after Ratzinger took over there, refused to act. Until outed by the Press. C. 2001. Though even in 2001, Church apologists were publishing opinions, to the effect that the real "scandal" was not the mollestation; but revealing it, so that people lost their faith. So that the scandal was caused not by the mollesters, but by the whistle-blowers that turned them in.

Hiding, concealing crimes in the church, specifically pederasty, is the main charge; along with that, doing this systematically in a way consistent with RICO racketerring charges. Including bribing and threating priests and victims to keep silent.

That is the accusation; that is the matter that we wish to see clarified, determined, and punished, in a court of law. The fact that some of these crimes are a whole 20 years old, does not make them good deeds instead of crimes. Nor especially is a record of 2,000 years of abuse neglibable, because it was 20 years ago.

By the way, even the Pope himself now suggests that submitting the Church to law, reporting mollesters to legal authorities, is a good thing. The law actively prosecutes child-mollesters; priests, the Church, forgave them ... and even joined them.

To try to escape confession and correction of your sins, by way of a technical, legalistic mechanism; i.e., with the claim of being a head of state? A claim not necessarily fully sustained by examination of the appropriate international documents? Is that Christian? Failing to confess, failing to redress wrong, by employing a sophistical technicality: is that good, and Christian?

By the way, you should all be extremely greatful to the Press, and the New York Times. If not for the press, priests would still be sexually mollesting your children - only no one would know about it.

Is that kind of cover-up, really what you want again, in the future? Let's support the press, and the law, and these specific investigations.

Let's begin to fully Confess the sins of the Church; only when we confess them, and "face" them at last, can we see them fully; see them well enough to begin to correct them. At long last.

By the way, pederasty is only one of the sins of the Church; there are a hundred more to examine, after this.

IF the Pope has the right to hire and fire bishops, why didn't Pope Paul VI fire Archbishop Lefebvre when Lefebfre refused to accept some conclusions of Vatican Council II, and led his followers into schism?
In recent centuries, fear of schism has definitely influenced any attempt by the Pope to discipline or correct any erratic or peculiar actions by bishops, except on the most tactful and private terms.
TeaPot562

Mr. T:

True enough. The Church has tried to "get along" a little too much. But of course, we should not get along all too well, with child mollesters and liars.

The great sins of the Church itself though, that underlies all this? It is a pattern of consistent lying and deception, by our holiest religious leaders. Note that all the Bishops knew about mollesting priests; but all the Bishops lied about it. They assured us over and over we had a perfect church; even as they knew better, privately.

And if Bishops could lie about a thing like this, they could lie about anything and everything.

So next: what other things have all our Bishops lied to us about? How much of our conventional religion, our current idea of Christianity, is a lie?

And how will we find the true idea of God and Good?

Let's keep trying - on our own.

No thank you, priests and bishops, for your "assistance" and "guidance."

"While it may be true that the legal structure of the dioceses are that of corporations, they of course differ in that their "parent" is a foreign sovereign entity. It's more complicated by the fact that it's a religion whose practices can be defended by freedom of religion arguments."

Those might be good argumenets but those aren't the ones made by the Archbishop. Actually, foreign sovereigns can be sued in US courts under some circumstances. As I explained above, when a foreign government engages in non- govenremental business transcations (as many Communist countries did historically0 through a corporation that corporation can sometimes be sued.

The idea that the Vatican and Catholic dioceses may be susceptible to suit in U.S. courts is not a legally frivolous argument. There are reasons why I think that suing the Vatican will ultimately not happen, but I would prefer that the Church actually clean up its own act completely and publicly rather than rely on a legal techicality.

I won't address the argument that clergy sexual abuse is a protected religious activity under the First Amendment.

"IF the Pope has the right to hire and fire bishops, why didn't Pope Paul VI fire Archbishop Lefebvre"

Lefebvre was ex-communicated. The point here is that ex-communication is a pretty big deal and the threat of ex-communication can give the Vatican leverage. (As a non-Catholic, it seems to me the Church has been horribly burned in its foolishness to try to make amends with these people. It reinstated Richard Williamson only to find out he is a crackpot Holocaust denier.)

Cardinal Sean Brady has offered to resign if the Vatican requests him to because of his role in covering up sex abuse and pressuring child victims to swear secrecy oaths in Ireland to prevent the priests from being prosecuted. No such request for a resignation has been forthcoming. Cardinal Bernard Law has a cushy appointment as archpriest of Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. There continues to be no accountability for these two men who actively covered up for child molesters.

"Even before the May 2001 memo, Ratzinger and the CDF still had substantial responsibility for investigating and prosecuting child sex abuse cases. This is apparent in both the Marcial Maciel and Lawrence Murphy cases."

How so? Murphy's case only came to the CDF's attention because the local bishop sought to laicize him. Otherwise CDF would never have been involved. By the way, an actual translation of the key Italian document in the Murphy case is really helpful, because it shows that CDF actually DIDN'T forbid a laicization trial: http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/01/what-really-happened-at-the-cdf/

I don't know anything about the Maciel case. What about that case makes it apparent that CDF had this substantial responsibility?

"I looked through the O'Bryan case and it seems to rely instead on an even earlier order given back in 1962 that mandates secrecy"

Sounds like Crimen Sollicitationis; John Allen discussed that document pretty thoroughly in 2003: http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2003c/081503/081503n.htm

He concluded that there was really nothing to the then-popular notion that Crimen Sollicitationis was some sort of official instruction to cover up sexual abuse.

And even if CS were such a document -- what bearing would that have on the current Pope? He was a college teacher at the time that CS was issued.

"Murphy's case only came to the CDF's attention because the local bishop sought to laicize him."

The blog post you point to has some good additional details about this case but my basic understanding is still the same. The Murphy case fell under the CDF's jurisdiction because it involved the priest soliciting children for sex in the confessional. I believe that is covered by the 1962 document. It is also the case that it took over nine months between the time the initial letter was sent for followup from the CDF. There is no reason why it should have taken nine months and an additional followup to move things along on such a serious matter.

"He concluded that there was really nothing to the then-popular notion that Crimen Sollicitationis was some sort of official instruction to cover up sexual abuse."

No, but the document does appear to require that allegations be subject to secrecy. The real issue is whether bishops or cardinals thought that going to the police with abuse allegations would be violating Vatican rules. If they did, there is a case to be made that the Vatican should be responsible (note the defendant in this case is the Holy See as an institution, not the Pope) under the tort of negligence. The theory would be that the Vatican had control and influence over bishops and priests, that the Vatican had a duty to parishioners to protect them from sexual predators and that it failed to use its control to meet its duties.

1) The effort to directly implicate Joe Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI in the coverup, either before his tenure at the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, or during it, before 2001, is widely reported. Especially while he was a BISHOP heading a diocese in Germany; where he would of course have had direct responsiblity. See the NY Times articles on this subject. There the Times HAS located a mollesting priest in his diocese, who Ratzinger did not stop.

2) Efforts to directly implicate the CDF proper, are focusing on another specific case. As reported in the NY Times

3) But in general terms? Note that the CDF of course, is just one office of the Church; and all offices should be investigated.

4) But for that matter, I'd like to be the first to point out here and now, that there are other organizations headed by Ratzinger, that are implicated in systematically and explicitly commanding Catholics to break laws. The Church and Ratzinger for example, approved such commands, in the Catechisms. And note, the 2000 and current Catechism, has the core authorities of the Church, explicitly ordering Catholics to disobey laws, if they are not in accordance with Chruch teaching.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. c. 1997/2000 AD ed.:


"The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order.... REFUSING OBEDIENCE TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience...." (Cat. 2242, p. 541. The moral order as defined by the Church; emphasis, ours).


This, the current or "universal" catechism, explicitly orders Catholics to disobey the law, when the law contrasted with Church teaching or its idea of the moral order. It was issued under the central authority of three of the major Catholic authorities of the day: being a) published by the USCC; b) signed by John Paul II; and c) presented "IMPRIMI POTEST + JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER." It was then d) presented in nearly every Catholic Church worldwide, as a definitive statement of church doctrine, teaching.

The introduction by John Paul II also notes explicitly that "this edition was prepared by an Interdisasterial Commission which I appointed for this purpose in 1993. Presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger" (p. xiv).

BishopAccountability.org:

Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal 'Has Now Reached' The Pope

Gather
March 14, 2010

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978102301

EUROPE -- Germany's sex abuse scandal within the Catholic Church has finally reached the Pope. As Archbishop of Munich, 1977-1982, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger allegedly allowed a priest suspected of having abused a child to return to pastoral work in the 1980s. The archdiocese said the chaplain, identified only as H., underwent therapy for suspected "sexual relations with boys." In nearby Grafing, the same priest was suspended 3 years later in 1985, following new accusations of sexual abuse. The following year, he was convicted of sexually abusing minors.

Ireland too is reeling from the scandals of abuse at the hands of officials within the Irish church. With approximately 170 priests in question in the Archdiocese of Dublin alone, Ireland was the first country in Europe to confront the church's worldwide custom of shielding pedophile priests from the law and public scandal. The legacy of both abusers and victims is now surfacing across many European countries; the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy. Analysts are now beginning to wonder if a likely tide of lawsuits will force European dioceses to declare bankruptcy like their American cousins.

Saturday, the Vatican denounced "aggressive attempts to drag Pope Benedict XVI into the spreading scandals of pedophile priests in his German homeland." According to Rev. Fergus O'Donoghue, editor of the Irish Jesuit journal Studies; "The pope was no different to any other bishop at the time. The church policy was to keep it all quiet – to help people, but to avoid scandal. Avoiding scandal was a huge issue for the church," "Of course there was cover-up," he added. But worse was "the systematic lack of concern for the victims."

brettongarcia writes: 'for 2,000 years the Church has been assuring us it is perfect and "holy"'

I'm afraid you've just demonstrated your complete ignorance of the Christian faith. That destroys, logically, all of your other arguments.

I have been aware, due to my local parish newspapers, of the "sex crisis" since the early 1980s. Back then the reports were of the treatment therapy would provide. The second push came in the early 1990s as my diocese (Boston by the way) started to face up to the failure of therapy. There were the courageous few, Cardinal Ratzinger was one of them, that pushed for greater action. Most of us sinners just wanted it to go away, as we still do in our schools and in the workplace. The press didn't "uncover" anything. It sensationalized it.

The main benefit of the press reports comes in our, not just the Church's, public awareness of this major ill effect of the sexual revolution. Sin is common to all ages of man, but this sin peaked in the 1970s and 1980s framed by the declaration of the revolution and the advent of AIDS. Yet many still want to cover their eyes and claim that something about the priesthood does this to us humans. We demonize others rather than face the demon in ourselves.

"All fall short of the glory of God." That's the kind way of saying the we Christians believe that we are all sinners in need of the salvation that Jesus bought for us. "Perfect" indeed.

Bretton Garcia is obsessively trying to prove the plaintiff's case. And failing. Bretton Garcia, I will pray for you. Let Jesus into your heart and joy will replace hatred. Mike Melendez, well said.

Mark:

Good work. It appears the Kentucky court of appeals, has approved the idea that the relation of a bishop to the Vatican, is roughly that of an employee, to an employer? Thus granting one major pillar of the case.

Regarding the CDF? The investigation is of the entire Vatican and Church hierarchy, at all levels; not just the CDF. But especially contested, is the investigation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and specifically Cardinal Joe Ratzinger, who was long head of the Vatican CDF. Since Ratzinger is now the Pope.

The story of the CDF and the Pope, though, is only a tiny part of the investigation; if it fails, there are many, many other avenues to pursue. But to sort through THIS complicated subject, of Ratzinger and the CDF: read the Christian Science Monitor story, "Catholic Sex Abuse Scandals: Three Key Cases Facing Pope Benedict. Or better, the May. 28, 2010 NPR timeline: "Timeline: Priest Abuse Claims Date Back Decades." This is a complicated subject; and a lot depends on who knew what, and when. So search the Web for "timeline" stories, to sort this out chronologically.

To those who object to this investigation; indeed, pray for us. I also dealt with such cases as early as 1983, through to 2000 - and typically, got nothing but Denial and resentment, from Catholic officials: the same as I am getting here, today, from many. Though however, that today, some Catholics are willing to at last partially acknowledge that the Church is not "perfect" (and "holy"?), is a great leap forward; into the Humility that a true Christian should have.

Am I obsessive on this? I am focused on this, because this is potentially an historic, watershed moment. We are on the verge of at last, beginning to really see - and learn how to correct - these and worse, longstanding "sins of the Church." To get the better and more honest Church that we all deserve, after all.

Pray for us all.

Brettongarcia and all:

"Though however, that today, some Catholics are willing to at last partially acknowledge that the Church is not "perfect" (and "holy"?), is a great leap forward; into the Humility that a true Christian should have."

Just a reminder to all that Christ established the Church and it is holy. It is built, however of "living stones" - human beings who are not perfect and in many ways, sinful. This includes all of us, our priests, bishops and, yes, even our Popes. The behavior of some of the members of the Body of Christ is appalling and they need to be held accountable. Hopefully what comes from the calling out of those guilty of sexual abuse within the Church will help bring about more awareness of this horrible behavior throughout the whole population by those who aren't so easily able to be categorized into a particular organization.

Richard (@08:44am 5/26/2010),

I am sorry that you feel hurt by a decision of Archbishop Chaput. However, I can tell from the Archbishop's third sentence, that the parish to which you refer was in the See of Denver, and not in the See of Pueblo & Colorado Springs, nor in the See of Cheyenne, Wyoming.

You may ask how I can determine this. The answer is in that third sentence, where the Archbishop addresses [emphasis mine] "parishioners assuming I have the authority to “straighten out” their liturgists and principals and pastors or some other problem in their local parish—within the province but outside my own diocese." He reiterates this principle in the second sentence of his third paragraph: "Each bishop in a province is an equal."

I can understand how you have been hurt, but to imply that the Archbishop is being untruthful is patently incorrect.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Word "Twist"ing Artist:


"Each bishop in a province is an equal." Except some of them are somehow called "Arch" or "higher" bishops; and they and not just "in" but also "arch"ing "over" several disceses; overseeing a province, which includes several dioceses, and their bishops?

I understand why the Archbishop and his agents, might be trying to shirk or shift responsibility/liability here, by clever sophistries and word-twisting. Still, would you please try to learn to face the sins of the Church, and even the sophistical sins of archbishops, and their agents? Rather than playing word games that ultimately, fool only yourself.

Excommunication is a useful tool for controlling others ONLY if the person excommunicated is in frequent contact with others who know of the excommunication order, and are willing to follow it by some shunning of the person involved. In medieval Europe, nobles who conducted any wars against neighboring states seemed to look at excommunication as an occupational hazard. You had a bishop who would excommunicate your opponent; and your opponent had a bishop who would excommunicate you. Most of your subjects did not read or write, and did not know of your status. When peace was reached between you and your opponent, the mutual excommunications were withdrawn as part of the peace settlement.
The last two heads of state to be excommunicated by the Pope were England's Elizabeth I (in about 1570) and Argentina's Juan Peron (circa 1955). Neither excommunication seemed to have the desired effect of modifying the conduct of the object. Conclusion: excommunication as a political tool has little value when applied to prominent politicians.
TeaPot562

T:

Interesting stuff! Excommunicating purely political leaders doesn't seem to do much.

Still, I think publically excommunicating an Archbishop - specifically, anathematizing/excommunicating Archbishop Chaput, as he should be, in part for denying the primary of the Pope - WOULD be noted. And would be very effectively transmitted worldwide, in today's media, of course.

So who should we excommunicate - or better, sue? 1) Archbishop Chaput? Or 2) Pope Benedict XVI/Joe Ratzinger? Or 3) both?

First, we should excommunicate/fire/sue Archbishop Chaput.

Archbishop Chaput should be anathematized, fired, and/or sued. In part, for 1) "hypocrisy": for pretending to follow the Pope, while in the meantime, denying him. Denying that he as bishop, or any bishop, has to follow the Pope; and thereby implicitly, indirectly denying Apostolic Succession, Papal Infallibility, and the leadership of the Pope.

As it turns out from other articles on this subject, Chaput should also be 2) kicked out of the Church also, for often supporting a heretically extreme, "one issue" anti-abortionism. (See my 700-page book on this subject, "The Conservative and Pro Life Heresies," rough draft online, in "Brettongarcia's Blog").

Then too of course, 3) Archbishop Chaput should be fired for protecting himself and the Church, even when they were wrong; for covering up the sins of the Church; protecting pederasts in effect. For trying to play a blame shell-game, shifting blame around endlessly, in order to evade blame, responsibility, and justice.

Finally, as for Joe Ratzinger? Let's see how Joe behaves himself, or not.

Do some of the above comments mean that pastors are now responsible for the sins of their parishioners?

Pastor:

Nope. Just that Popes are responsible for Bishops; both are responsible for priests. Especially when their sins of their workers are known.

And if some holy men sin greviously, and damage say, children? And their crimes are known to their superiors? The criminals should not be hidden and protected; they should be put somewhere, where they can't hurt anyone else.

And the leaders should confess to everyone, publically, repeatedly, that their own leadership has been bad and false.

How many bad administrative and theological decisions have YOU made? Or your church or denomination? Did you go on, and keep telling your parishioners that your church was perfect? And that its idea of God should still be followed with total faith?

It would be better to warn others, that after all, your vision of God and good is not perfect; therefore others should NOT follow your picture of God, with blind and total "faith."

brettongarcia, I can't figure you out. You claim you dealt with Catholic child abuse cases in 1983, yet your beliefs do not appear to be Christian let alone Catholic. How were you involved? As a trial lawyer? As a therapist? You call for the excommunication of the bishop and of the pope. Given you are not a Catholic, why would you care about the internal working of a church you do not believe in? On the other hand you claim you are obsessive "To get the better and more honest Church that we all deserve, after all," which suggests you think you are a better human being than all the bishops in the Catholic Church. I hear echos of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor. I suggest you read the book or read it again and note which of the characters told the story.

As for me, I hope God will grant me better than I deserve. I pray for it daily.

Though I am not a Catholic, I often speak with all kinds of people, including Catholics, about moral and ethical matters. Around 1973-1983, while in graduate school, I would now and then talk to priests, about moral matters - and even theology; since much of theology has common ground with morality and ethics.

Around 1976, my gay room-mate - whose mother was a nun, and whose brother was a (a gay?) priest - confirmed my casual impression, that many priests were gay; and my roommate took me to the (rectory? Priests' dorm), to watch as the bus downloaded the new "boys" (in this case, older than 18). Often I would mention ethical problems with this sort of thing to various Catholic officials. Eventually, some minor disciplinary actions were taken; but never enough.

I call for the anathematization/excommunication of Archbishop Chaput, for moral and ethical violations.

I at times work within the framework of the Church, using its language, because often, that is the only framework those within in it can see, or even pretend to acknowledge.

Am I a better person than all the bishops in the world? I am at least, not mollesting little boys, and promising I can walk on water; while strutting around presenting myself as a perfect moral template.

brettongarcia: If you are not "a perfect moral template", by what right do you judge?

I note your graduate experiences came at the height of the crisis in discussion. Were the people you mention, the ones who gave you the idea that Christianity is about being "holy and perfect"? Perhaps you know that "anathematization/excommunication" are fancy ways of saying, "You are not a Catholic"? That's an odd thing for a non-Catholic to care about.

Very well Mike: keep defending the Church, and/OR the bishops, with their pederasty, and lies. You will get the Church you deserve again, soon enough.

ARE the sins all in the past? Actually, the worse sins continue; they didn't end in 1983, or in 2001, or today in 2010. Remember: more threatening for the future, is not the fact of pederasy itself; but the fact that essentially ALL THE BISHPS LIED to cover it up. Lies which continue to this day. Nearly every bishop had at least one such case in his diocese; but covered it up. Or in biblical language, "whitewashed" it.

But especially, remember this, the worst sin: the lies of Bishops. If the Bishops lied to you about ONE thing ... they could have lied to you about anything and everything, after all. Take a look at a few of the examples of pious word-twisting above, for example, by probably, some priests. And who knows? Pseudonymous bishops and/or their representatives?

Consider especially, whether you want a church in which all the bishops, all your leaders, lie; "deceiv"ing the people and "whitewashing" their own sins. That sin of lying, especially, is offensive to almost any morality. And of course should be concern to anyone, Catholic or not. And of course, will result in other huge problems in the future as well.

And this sin continues - defending demonstrabley decetfful, lying Bishops - continues today. Though many bishops are now resigning, in Ireland and Europe.

Personally, I would't mind being excommunicated from the Church; I never joined it in the first place. But 1) if I were in it, I would at least not be hypocritical; pretending to honor the Pope, while rebelling against Apostolic Succession, Papal Infallility, and the centrality of the Pope, "first" among bishops. And 2) excommunication, while not threatening to me, WOULD probabably slow down allegedly "Catholic" bishops.

By the way, the people who told me that the Church was "perfect" and "holy," were Catholic priests, often on networks like EWTN/RN. And to some extent, the Catechism: "Be perfect and holy, as your father is holy," they (mis) quoted the Bible out of context; "in union with his Savvor, the disciples attains the perfection of charity" (Cat. of the Cath. Church, 1997-2000 ed, sec. 1709). The very word "holy" implies perfection; can you have something holy that is flawed?

To be sure, the literally hundred or so priests, bishops, archbishops - and finally the Pope - I have spoken to, often misquoted the Catechism: sec. 825, 769, DO properly suggest that the church has NOT attained perfection.

I would argue that perhaps the Bible and even Catholic Tradition are correct; but your Bishops sure aren't.

And if you keep defending them, they will continue in office; where they will continue to lie to you; and lead you further and further, into their false and deceitful idea of God and Christ.

Decide, Mike, whether you are going to keep defending pederasts and/or liars, a deceitful false Church or body of bishops. Or become a good and honest person.

I've dealt all my life with people in Denial; who will not face the Truth. Will you face it now, Mike?

brettongarcia: Now you can read my mind. It's now not surprising that you think you can. I will pray for you, which is as close as I can come to Jesus' kiss.

Well, to be sure, mere PRIVATE excommunication of priests and bishiops, is NOT enough; many Catholics have been excommunicated privately, and continue on, rather unbothered, attending church but not taking communion.

So I could now clarify one matter: we need more than private excommunication; we need at the minimum, 1) PUBLIC excommunication. We need publically-announced excommunication of key bishops and priests. Like Archbishops Chaput and Burke. Or better, publically-announced 2) anathematization, and 3) lacization.

Once THESE disciplinary matters are announced, publicized, to the whole world, a real change of consciousness should take place in the Church, worldwide.

This we can do, operating as far as we are able, En Persona Christi.

Dear Brettongarcia

If you are not a Catholic (post from 5.30.2010 | 11:29pm) why do you say "we"?

Well, that's one of the other big problems, with defending Catholicism, the Church, too adamantly. The eagerness to defend a specifically "Catholic" identity, leads many to defend even pederastical or deceitful bishops, just because they are Catholic. It also leads to a focus on the Church, rather than on God and Christ; which is a major barrier to achieving the unity of the Body of Christ. Since it neglects to notice that others - non-Catholics, Protestants - are Christians too.

Probably the real core of being a Christian, is Thomas a Kempis' "Imitation of Christ." This orientation leads you to a very, very different view of God and Christ than what we get from our bishops. When you really try to imitate or emulate Christ, you will rediscover right away, Christ fighting the church of his time; Christ fighting the Pharisees and false priests. For their inner sinfulness, and hypocrisy.

Just as I am fighting them today; here and now.

How stupid does Archbishop Chaput think we are? Who appointed him bishop, and then archbishop? The pope. To whom is he required to submit a letter of resignation when he reaches a certain age, and who will decide whether to accept it? The pope. Who sets "operational policy" binding on the local diocese, such as whether women may be ordained as priest? The local bishop? Hardly. The pope. Chaput's portrayal of the pope as just one particularly important franchise head among many, like the owner of the largest Ford dealership or Burger King franchise, is absurd. The pope does not merely provide leadership in matters of faith and morals.

Siger:

I agree; Archbishop Chaput's dishonesty, his duplicity and inconsistency, his departure from Church Tradition, is utterly shocking. It's flabbergasting; it's dumbfounding.

Catholics have heard every day, from every church, for 2,000 years, that we must all follow the Pope. Indeed, countless physical wars were fought with Protestantism, over precisely that issue. But then, when that constantly-repeated order recently became inconvenient for the bishops, Chaput just flip-flops 2,000 years of tradition, and drops it.

It's hard to find a more obvious case of dishonesty, than Chaput.

By the way: when Chaput tries to parse or separate, the 1) practical "administration" of the Church from 2) the Pope pronouncing on matters of "faith and morals," that fails. First because, as Siger notes, the Pope was responsible for both.

But furthermore, the attempt to split 1) administrative from 2) moral decisions, is false conceptually; it is a false dichotomy. That split is obviously, a false distinction, a distinction without a difference. The two are obviously connected. When the Pope 1) set a policy of how to deal "administratively" with pederasty, that decision of course, was 2) based on, and helped define, the Church's position on the moral seriousness and nature of the sin.

And vice-versa: the Pope's idea of the seriousness and nature of the sin, would obviously largely determine the way the Church decided, how to practically, administratively, deal with the sin.

The practical administration and the moral pronouncements, of the Church, are inextricably interconnected.

Or does the Church usually administer things, without regard to morality? If so - as one suspects at times - then, so much for the worse.

Chaput is correct that the local bishop is "the chief teaching and governing authority in his own local church." The public has learned much and learned very quickly from the two-thirds of the bishops who transferred abusers around to unknowing parishes: that the laity matters far less than the clergy; that clerical sin will be tolerated in ways that the sins of lay people would never be; that the illusion of holiness must be preserved at all costs; that, in the case of Cardinal Law, the pope will shield you from the law and provide a nice cozy post for you in Rome if you run into serious trouble, and that the bishops lack common sense and are desperate to get their authority back, hence the swift excommunication of the hospital administrator nun in Arizona, where clearly the doctrine of double effect applied.

Siger:

As far as I know, there are elements of relatively, historically recent Church doctrine, that give local bishops a small degree of autonomy or personal authority. But it seems clear enough that they are getting many orders, and essentially all their authority, as you noted earlier, from the Vatican, and the Pope.

Indeed, the Pope approves and signs the main or "universal" Catechism for example; and presents it as a "sure norm" for Catholic doctrine, to all Catholics, and all bishops. So that the ideas and misbehavior of Bishops, can be credited to them individually - as well as to finally, central authority back in the Vatican too.

Why are the bishops like Chaput just getting worse and worse? Why are they now committing more and more flagrant errors and sins and doctrinal flip-flops? Your (Siger's) outline here of their low motivations for their recent misbehavior, their cover-ups, is excellent. Clearly the bishops are trying to cover up first, their own personal sins; in order to escape the law, and stay out of jail.

In addition, the bishops are lying, covering up their sins, to try to preserve the illusion that they themselves, are absolutely holy, reliable. So that people won't begin to lose faith; and so the people won't deduce that after all, perhaps it is time to not only demand the resignation of many bishops, but also simply, that it is time for most believers to stop putting money in the Church's collection plates. That it is time to stop going to Church.

At times, the Catholic hierarchy made this ultimate purpose of the coverup clear enough; indeed, it's in the Catechism, sec. 2284-2287. Indeed, a 2001 sermon on the "scandal," suggested that the Church hierarchy's main desire, was to avoid scandal, to keep the pederasty quiet. While the desire to hush up the whole thing, was motivated primarily by the desire by the Church hierarchy, to keep the illusion of their own holiness intact. So that people would not "lose faith" in our bishops - as by rights they should.

The whole "whitewash"ing effort, the coverup, the attempt to avoid "scandal," was explicitly intended to prevent the people from beginning to notice, at last, that there are huge sins, lies, in nearly all our bishops. Indeed, the whole purpose of the coverup was designed to prevent the people from first; 1) noticing that there are countless sins and coverups, in our priests; 2) in our bishops; and 3) throughout the entire Church. These things were suppressed, to try to keep honest Catholics, from 4) noticing the sins of their superiors; and from 5) going to local legal authorities and lawyers, to turn the sinners into the police.

The sins of priests and bishops were - and are - covered up, to try to prevent honest Catholics from noticing the corruption of many of their leaders, and then beginning to cooperate in the just legal prosecution of the Church. Hiding the sins of the Church from the people, is designed to maintain their loyalty and innocence; so that the public will not discover those sins, and begin 6) cutting off their contributions to the Church. While 7) losing faith in the Church (if not in God). And begin simply leaving the Church in droves.

Strikingly, the effort of bishops to in part, simply, personally escape justice too, has at times been glaringly obvious. Not long ago, major offender Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, simply left the country for the Vatican. To escape arrest here in America, many say. He's living in the Vatican, he's fled to another country, in part many suggest, to simply escape our police.

First off, let me say that when most people would get drunk with power and flock to the opportunity to lord themselves over their fellow bishops, you have refrained. Charles, for this you should be commended. Church congregations these days are filled with enough busy bodies, we don't need more of them in the leadership.

Secondly, no matter how we or the world chooses to classify the Catholic church as an organization, justice should be served. I believe that if things were dealt with appropriately and transparently in the first place, we would not be seeing the backlash we currently are. Sure there would still be consequences. My thought is that if it were addressed head on, it would not seem like some sort of a conspiracy. (and we know how people love to associate the church with conspiracies) If important information was covered up or omitted, it should be found out. The ones who took part in the cover up should be punished. Those who were not involved should not pay for the sins of others. They are going to suffer enough ridicule and persecution by association, anyways. Thank you for all of your insights Charles. As always, you are and will remain in my prayers.