Posted on 08/30/2005 7:57:24 PM PDT by Salvation
Exactly. The bankruptcy decision is the problem. It's troubling to me that the Bishop always wants to have it both ways. When he wants to override the decision of a local parish about its property, he argues that he alone owns and controls the property. Then he argues the exact opposite in the bankruptcy case. He declares bankruptcy under the federal bankruptcy statutes, but he wants the court to use canon law, not the federal statutes to make a decision in his favor. My attorney friends said that the only way his legal strategy makes sense is if his highest priority is to delay, for as long as he can, testifying about his own involvement in the scandal. He has made no attempt to settle with the victims, has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to attorneys and to a public relations firm, and almost nothing to the abuse victims. I hope he isn't typical, but the fact that he was elected President of the USSB is discouraging.
Dear ElPatriota,
"Let's give the CC the same compassion they gave the victims of these 'disgusting' abuse. So... I hope they get SCREWED financially."
So you hope I get screwed financially?
And Salvation, too?
And Siobhan? And RobbyS? And NYer? And Pyro7480?
After all, we're all part of the Catholic Church.
Or do you just mean our institutions? Like our parishes. And our schools. And our hospitals. And our other charities.
Is that what you mean?
So, you'd really like to screw the Catholic Church by...
...denying Catholics a place to hear Mass
...denying young children the opportunity to get a decent education (check out the percentages of NON-Catholic poor and minority kids at low-cost Catholic schools in major cities throughout the United States - such as in DC where the public schools are a nightmare)
...denying sick people medical care
...denying homeless, starving, mentally ill folks from receiving shelter, food, and care.
Yeah, that'll really show the Catholic Church!!
"I understand, seminaries are full of homosexuals, or at least they were until 3 or 4 years ago,..."
Actually, you understand very little. In fact, your lack of understanding, of knowledge, is on display for all to see here.
This is a problem that peaked in the mid 1980s. The incidence of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy, by the mid-1990s, had plunged to levels not seen since the 1950s.
All that you have been treated to for the last few years is the airing of our dirty laundry, you have learned that we had some bad bishops and some incompetent bishops, and some bishops who were both bad and incompetent.
There are 300 Catholic bishops, give or take, in the United States of America. As well, there were perhaps a 2,000 - 4,000 abusive priests out of over 100,000 over the last fifty or sixty years.
And you want to judge the entire Catholic Church, all 65,000,000 bapitized Catholics in the United States based on the bad actions of around 2% - 4% of our priests, and maybe a hundred or two hundred bishops.
We'll pray for you.
sitetest
Thank you, sitetest. God bless you and Mary keep you.
It deserves to be repeated.
Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. 8:15: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good--and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver--and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. ...On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above--either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory--or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him--or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Mt. 5:40,41: "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two."
Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, "we ought to obey God rather than man." ...
Second Reply: This argument is true of laws that are contrary to the commandments of God, which is beyond the scope of (human) power. Wherefore in such matters human law should not be obeyed.
Third Reply: This argument is true of a law that inflicts unjust hurt on its subjects. The power that man holds from God does not extend to this: wherefore neither in such matters is man bound to obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a more grievous hurt. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 96 a. 4)
Dear ElPatriota,
"...but the CC, and all associated to it, offended me"
From this, it appears that perhaps you suffered from some injury from someone in the Catholic Church. Maybe even from two, or five, or fifty in the Church. Certainly not all 65 million of us, but I suppose that perhaps the wound was painful enough that it felt like that.
It appears that you're still wounded, that it hasn't healed.
Perhaps when things don't hurt as bad, you'll recognize that you impugn millions with your words, and at least will refrain from repeating them.
I'll pray for you.
sitetest
I really hope this will be my last on rant on this subjec... but everything I see people coming up with excuses or very 'logical explanations,' as to why we shoud give the CC a brake... it infuriates me. But, this not personal ok? And I really don't want to talk about this anymore. Please.
"On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above--either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory--or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him--or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good."
The decision of the bankruptcy court was none of those things.
It was not made for the vainglory of anybody, nor for the cupidity of the lawmaker. Neither the judge nor the government will be enriched by the decision to consider assets over which the diocese exerts command and control to be diocesan assets.
Nor is the law imposed unequally here. Any entity that went into bankruptcy court would be given the same treatment.
The argument, oft-repeated here, is that the Church is the Church, and sacred, and therefore not subject to the same property laws as everyone else. That would, indeed, be an unequal application of the laws. But the court did not apply the law unequally. It applied the same law to the Church as it would to any other entity in bankruptcy coming before it. This was utterly foreseeable and eminently predictable, precisely because our law of bankruptcy is quite standardized and really rather mechanical. The Church engaged in special pleading that amounted to "We're the CHURCH, so we're exempt from the normal rules everybody else has to play by, because we're a religious institution."
The judge said otherwise, neither capriciously, nor vaingloriously, nor maliciously, nor to erect a special standard for the church; rather, in refusing to erect a special law for the Church.
It bears repeating: the decision in this case was in no sense an unjust or immoral law by traditional Catholic standards. The fact that the foot the shoe pinches is the Church's foot does not make that law unjust according to the Church's own traditional standards.
The Church is a perfect and Divine Society. She is not subject to the State, as you want to make her. According to you, the Church is, moreover, equal to every merely human society, an absolutely false theory.
19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.—Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, etc.26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical "Incredibili," Sept. 7, 1863.
30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government.—Letter to the Bishop of Monreale "Singularis nobisque," Sept. 29, 1864.
41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu."—Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.—Ibid.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction.—Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces.—Ibid.
From the "Syllabus" of Pius IX, concerning which Leo XIII states: "To the like effect, also, as occasion presented itself, did Pius IX brand publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which they might safely follow."
Do you reject each and every one of these propositions, or not? Do you assent to the words of Leo XIII, "Immortale Dei", §10-12, 27?
This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action. And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.In very truth, Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles unrestrained authority in regard to things sacred, together with the genuine and most true power of making laws, as also with the twofold right of judging and of punishing, which flow from that power. ... Hence, it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man's guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence.
Now, this authority, perfect in itself, and plainly meant to be unfettered, so long assailed by a philosophy that truckles to the State, the Church, has never ceased to claim for herself and openly to exercise. The Apostles themselves were the first to uphold it, when, being forbidden by the rulers of the synagogue to preach the Gospel, they courageously answered: 'We must obey God rather than men.' This same authority the holy Fathers of the Church were always careful to maintain by weighty arguments, according as occasion arose, and the Roman Pontiffs have never shrunk from defending it with unbending constancy. Nay, more, princes and all invested with power to rule have themselves approved it, in theory alike and in practice. It cannot be called in question that in the making of treaties, in the transaction of business matters, in the sending and receiving ambassadors, and in the interchange of other kinds of official dealings they have been wont to treat with the Church as with a supreme and legitimate power. ...
Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named-and for the time being they are greatly in favor-it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony. They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government.
"[R]ejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State". That's you.
It bears repeating: the decision in this case was in no sense an unjust or immoral law by traditional Catholic standards. The fact that the foot the shoe pinches is the Church's foot does not make that law unjust according to the Church's own traditional standards.
On the other hand, Pius IX writes in Quanta Cura:
Others meanwhile, reviving the wicked and so often condemned inventions of innovators, dare with signal impudence to subject to the will of the civil authority the supreme authority of the Church and of this Apostolic See given to her by Christ Himself, and to deny all those rights of the same Church and See which concern matters of the external order. For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation, or at least its consent; that the Apostolic Constitutions, whereby secret societies are condemned (whether an oath of secrecy be or be not required in such societies), and whereby their frequenters and favourers are smitten with anathema -- have no force in those regions of the world wherein associations of the kind are tolerated by the civil government; that the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Trent and by Roman Pontiffs against those who assail and usurp the Church's rights and possessions, rests on a confusion between the spiritual and temporal orders, and (is directed) to the pursuit of a purely secular good; that the Church can decree nothing which binds the conscience of the faithful in regard to their use of temporal things; that the Church has no right of restraining by temporal punishments those who violate her laws; that it is conformable to the principles of sacred theology and public law to assert and claim for the civil government a right of property in those goods which are possessed by the Church, by the Religious Orders, and by other pious establishments." Nor do they blush openly and publicly to profess the maxim and principle of heretics from which arise so many perverse opinions and errors. For they repeat that the "ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from, and independent of, the civil power, and that such distinction and independence cannot be preserved without the civil power's essential rights being assailed and usurped by the Church." ...Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.
Now I do not deny that the state of civil law in this nation and in many others is not conformable to the proper ideal, and that the Church is often willing to voluntarily comply with provisions of civil law "in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Mt. 5:40,41: 'If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.'". This does not mean, however, that it is permissible for Catholics to actually advocate - as you are doing - the transgression of the rights of the Church by the State.
The Catholic Church does not have the rights of which you speak, in my view.
Let's go back to the starting point.
There is no right, within the Canon Law nor within the wider society, to sexually abuse children.
But sexual abuse happened.
There is no right within the civil law to hide that.
But there is the discretion within the Church Law to do so: what to be done was decided to have been within the discretion of the Church internally.
And this is where the two begin to walk apart.
People turned to their civil laws to extract justice from the Church, since the Church laws were not sufficient to do it.
The civil law has done so, in a variety of cases. This has imposed a financial burden on the Church, which apparently many people in the Church do not want to pay.
And so now the argument is raised that the Church is simply above the law, and only has to pay damages found against it in court if it decides to in the discretion of the men who run the Church.
Is this your position?
Further, is it your position that if I, a Catholic, call this position utterly ludicrous, that I am breaking Canon Law and subject to discipline by the Church?
Dear Vicomte13,
"Let's go back to the starting point.
There is no right, within the Canon Law nor within the wider society, to sexually abuse children.
But sexual abuse happened.
There is no right within the civil law to hide that.
But there is the discretion within the Church Law to do so: what to be done was decided to have been within the discretion of the Church internally."
To the degree that any priest or bishop violated the criminal code by directly harming other citizens, let the civil authorities prosecute these individuals and, if necessary, incarcerate them.
I will note, in passing, NOT A SINGLE PROSECUTOR IN THE UNITED STATES HAS PROSECUTED A SINGLE CATHOLIC BISHOP FOR "COVERING UP" THESE MATTERS. Perhaps that is because these prosecutors realize quietly that the bishops could not have engaged in "cover-ups" without the active exertions and participation of civil authorities. Indeed, the records show that often, the civil authorities were enthusiastic collaborators in the "cover-ups."
Thus, as a practical matter, your statement, "There is no right within the civil law to hide that," might not have been precisely true in the past.
However, I think that gbcdoj's point, and I agree with him, is that the civil law has no proper authority over the Church as an institution, and thus does not have the right to dispose of Her assets as seen fit by civil authorities.
To some degree, the problems we have are that the civil laws regarding corporate entities in relationship to ecclesial communities vary widely, and not in a few states, the civil laws aren't congruent with the organization and structures of the Catholic Church. Thus, the Church is prevented, by law, from organizing Herself according to the civil law in a way that truly represents Her real form. That the Church acquiesces to these arrangements for the reasons gbcdoj cites does not mean that they have any moral standing.
sitetest
So, let's close the door on the discussion then by answering the final question raised by gbcdoj's posts:
I simply disagree. I think that the Church should pay here, and I think that the invocations of church law to try and, to my eyes, weasel out of just penalties are immoral and should cease. I think that the civil judge in this case is right.
Does this, therefore, make me a heretic, and susceptible to formal discipline by the Catholic Church? It was asserted that my position is heresy. I say it is nothing of the kind, but that wielding the charge of heresy lightly is itself a serious matter. So, am I a heretic, or is it, rather, my accuser who has crossed the line?
Dear Victomte13,
I guess my perception is different than yours.
I don't think the Church owes the victims anything.
The bishop who did wrong (and not all of them did wrong, remember)? The priests who committed the abuses?
Absolutely!!
But although these folks are PART of the Church, they aren't the Church.
Should the Church bear the actual costs of counseling and things like that out of Christian charity? Sure. But does the Church owe any victims a million bucks each? No.
As well, in general, I believe that American tort law is pretty much immoral, per se. I believe that the doctrine of strict liability combined with the doctrine of agency has created a toxic mix of "law" that leads to fundamentally, intrinsically unjust results.
But to get to your final question, yeah, I agree with gbcdoj that the civil authorities really have no right to poke inside the governance of the Church. In time past, the civil authorities in the US often refrained from doing so. I think they were right to refrain.
Does all this make you a heretic?
I don't know. I think your position is unfair to the Catholic Church, but beyond that, hey, your guess is as good as mine.
I'll leave gbcdoj to decide whether he might want to venture a guess on that. He knows a lot more about this stuff than me. My knowledge and intellect only show me that the Church is being treated unfairly and immorally. I can't see all the way to heresy in this case.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.