The other item in today's RINUNCE E NOMINE from the Vatican besides Mons. Mueller's appointment to be the CDF Prefect had to do with the dismissal of a Slovakian bishop, which, as these announcements go, contained no explanation. Here is AP's take, which brings up an interesting common-sense question about when and why the Pope can dismiss bishops...
Pope fires Slovak bishop
in rare show of authority
By NICOLE WINFIELD
VATICAN CITY, July 2 (AP) — The Pope fired a 52-year-old Slovak bishop on Monday for apparently mismanaging his diocese, in a rare show of papal power.
[Winfield ignores that the Pope did the same thing a few weeks ago with an Italian bishop after a papal 'visitator' reported evidence of questionable financial dealings involving diocesan funds.]
[AGI's Salvatore Izzo says that an apostolic visitation made to the Slovak bishop's diocese last January reported grave administrative irregularities in the Diocese of Trnava attributable to the bishop, but the latter, who is a Redemptorist, refused to resign which is his option under canon law when there is a 'grave impediment' to carrying on his functions; Thus, the Pope was forced to dismiss him.]
Usually when bishops run into trouble — either for alleged moral lapses or management problems — they are persuaded by the Vatican to resign. But Pope Benedict XVI has become increasingly willing to forcibly remove bishops who refuse to step down, sacking three others in the last year alone.
In the most notable case, Benedict fired Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba, Australia last year after he called for the church to consider ordaining women and married men
[and who had, for seven years, ignored the Vatican's requests for him to desist from doing so]. He also removed a Congolese bishop for management problems in his diocese and an Italian one in May for similar reasons.
[So, Ms. Winfield, four dismissals in a year's time is a 'rare display of power'? The occurrence of these dismissals is obviously dependent on the existence of a compelling reason for the Pope to dismiss a brother bishop.]
On Monday, the Vatican said Benedict had "relieved from pastoral care" Bishop Robert Bezak of Trnava, Slovakia. No reason was given, but Italian news reports said administrative problems in the diocese were to blame.
Bishops normally hand in their resignation when they turn 75 years old, their customary retirement age.
The exercise of this ability to fire a bishop has important implications, particularly concerning bishops who mishandle cases of sexually abusive priests.
In the face of U.S. lawsuits seeking to hold the Pope ultimately responsible for pedophile priests, the Holy See has argued that bishops are largely masters of their dioceses and that the Pope doesn't really control them.
The Vatican has thus sought to limit any liability to the bishops themselves, arguing that the Pope doesn't exercise sufficient control over them to be held responsible for their bungled response to priests who rape children.
[This argument still holds! But it does not necessarily mean that the Pope can dismiss a bishop for a 'bungled response' because that would depend on what the response was exactly!]
The ability of the Pope to actively fire bishops, and not just passively accept their resignations, would seem to undercut the Vatican's argument. Still, no bishop in recent memory has been forcibly removed for mishandling an abuse case. ['Mishandling an abuse case' is quite a broad term. The mishandling has to rise to a criminal level - as in the case of financial manipulation involving diocesan funds - before it becomes actionable. So far, among the bishops who have failed to resign on their own (and who have not retired) because of provable complicity in covering for sex offenses by their priests, not one case has been raised that would seem to rise to that level.
The recent verdict against Mons. Lynn in Pennsylvania found him guilty of "one count of child endangerment for allowing a priest to take a new assignment involving contact with children even after learning of allegations that he had engaged in inappropriate contact with at least one minor"(Compared to the infamous case of Fr. Keoghan in Boston who was 'tolerated' by Cardinal Law, Lynn's negligence was relatively minor).
And the other bishop awaiting trial, Mons. Robert Finn of Kansas City, is facing, along with his diocese, "a criminal misdemeanor charge of failure to report suspected child abuse regarding a priest arrested last year for possession of child pornography". (Somehow, under Missouri law, this is a criminal misdemeanor, whereas ]ynn's offense, under Pennsylvania law, was a felony!)
Of course, while the charges against Lynn and Finn are minor in degree, it doesn't make their failures any less objectionable. But it must be pointed out that Lynn's offense dates back to the 1990s when there was no specific canon regulation - nor specific criminal law in Pennsylvania - that prohibited what he did, or directed himn to do otherwise. (And as far as cover-up goes, it would seem from evidence presented to a pennsylvania grand jury that Lynn's superior at the time, Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua, was actively carrying out such a cover-up, but because of the statute of limitations, and more importantly, because he died last January, any criminal action against him is moot now.) It was a totally different culture with regard to sexual abuse of children, before the Boston scandal erupted ib 2001 and the Catholic Church was forced to act specifically and concretely to confront the issue, forcing secular society at the same time to do so, although so far, the brunt of criminal prosecution has been against Catholic priests, bishops and dicoeses. Finn's offense is more 'actionable' because it happened in 2011, almost a decade since the USCCB promulgated a code of action to protect children, and does cast doubt on his judgment.]
Even the most well-known case, that of Cardinal Bernard Law, ended when Law offered his resignation after the sex abuse scandal exploded in his Boston archdiocese in 2002. Law subsequently was named archpriest of one of the Vatican's basilicas in Rome, St. Mary Major.
[If that action had been done by Benedict XVI, we would never ever hear the end of it from MSM, but John Paul II got a relative pass from the MSM because he was already visibly ill at the time. Funny that the MSM held their punches against a then 81-year-old ailing Pope but are not holding back, and even hitting below the belt often, at an 85-year-old Pope who has never been in the best of health!]
I have not yet posted here Sandro Magister's account earlier this month of bishops who have been dismissed and why
chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350268?eng=y
because his presentation is a bit muddled and reads even worse in translation, but I will have to get around to it soon.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 01/07/2013 23:32]