Why can’t charges be brought against American Bishops and Cardinals under Canon Law?
I recently received the following via email from Vinnie Nauheimer.
* * *
I have been mulling this over and finally found the right words. It is something that needs to be said and if it would bring forth a champion to bring the charges against these miscreants, all the better. Here is the article.
vinnie
Why can’t charges be brought against American Bishops and Cardinals under Canon Law?
By Vinnie Nauheimer
Several years ago my family was disparaged from the pulpit by the Vicar of Priest Personnel after we filed a lawsuit against a predator priest. The Vicar got up and from the pulpit declared that ours was the first complaint of this type against the priest and told the parishioners that the suit was all about money. He made that statement even though he had been in the parish quietly fixing a similar incident with another family a year earlier before vehemently decrying our accusations. In short, this man lied from the pulpit. This is all part of the public record of the Westchester Grand Jury Report investigating clergy abuse.
Being in a state of shock and too naïve at the time to file a slander suit, we did nothing. However, public humiliation and abuse of that magnitude is not easily forgotten. It seemed to me that a bureaucracy like the Catholic Church that has laws for everything, should have some condemning behavior like this. So with justice in mind, I acquired a copy of Canon Law and the Catechism and went to work reading. I found the following:
From the Catechism:
2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omission it deliberately leads others to sin gravely.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young. (My emphasis)
From Canon Law:
Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.
Can. 1389 § 1 A person who abuses ecclesiastical power or an office, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the office, unless a penalty for that abuse is already established by law or precept.
§ 2 A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another, performs or omits and act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or office, is to be punished with a just penalty.
Can. 212 1, Priests and Bishops are also bound by this obedience, in fact more so since they are responsible for passing on to the faithful genuine Catholic teaching. In other words, a Bishop or Priest who dissents from Church teachings is not to be obeyed in that matter, rather all must obey the Magisterium at all times, as Vatican II states.
Bishops and Cardinals have been in clear violation of the above since before the Clergy Abuse Scandal was blown wide open. After it became public, they only served to create greater scandal and incited incredible hatred and humiliation of the Roman Catholic Church. The burning question is, “Why won’t charges be brought under Canon Law against the cardinals and bishops who are the most egregious offenders?” Court proceedings, newspaper and personal accounts of their transgressions are numerous, sadly too numerous. Yet no one, even those who profess a desire to clean up the church, will file charges against those who have grievously wounded the Catholic Church. Why is that?
The answer, of course, is obvious. No member of the hierarchy will file charges, no matter how just, against another member of the hierarchy. Doing so would expose to the world to the extensive hypocrisy and corruption existing in today’s hierarchy. The hierarchy, all the way to the Vatican, would have to put their peers on trial and judge them for all the violations that the public already knows they have committed. Canon Law demands just penalties, but is there a bishop with enough spine to mete out a just punishment for such horrific sins against God, children and the church?
Bishop Accountability.org tells us that there are some thirteen or more credibly accused bishops. However, not one of them has ever been laicized nor proceedings begun to laicize. They have all been allowed to retire. Bishop Tom Gumbleton has the distinct privilege of the being the only bishop to stand up for survivors and he was immediately forced to retire. That speaks volumes for the collective will of the brotherhood of the red hat.
Surely, there must be a way for the laity to file charges under Canon Law and somewhere in this world at least one Canon Lawyer willing to take on this onerous task to save his or her church.
10 Responses to “Why can’t charges be brought against American Bishops and Cardinals under Canon Law?”
March 1, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Amen Vinnie.
My daughters are doing a project for their CCD class where they have to make a poster of the Church’s hierarchy and include a brief description of each position from Pope to Deacon. They describe all positions as “Holy men who live a holy life” and are “alled by God to lead the people of the Church” (their words). It’s requiring great restraint on my part to not challenge their descriptions. I want them to love their faith and their Church and I don’t know how to protect them from all of this stuff-all of these men who have violated the very sacred trust they have been given. I have to focus on some of the leaders who are worthy of the honors- Archbishop Romero, Dom Helder Camera, Bishop Gumbleton, the Jesuits who were murdered in Central America for their commitment to the poor, and many more. We can’t let the scoundrels take center stage. I’m going to rent the movie “Shoes of the Fisherman” and watch it with them tonight. More for myself than tehm.
Be well.
March 1, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Amen Vinnie.
My daughters are doing a project for their CCD class where they have to make a poster of the Church’s hierarchy and include a brief description of each position from Pope to Deacon. They describe all positions as “Holy men who live a holy life” and are “called by God to lead the people of the Church” (their words). It’s requiring great restraint on my part to not challenge their descriptions. I want them to love their faith and their Church and I don’t know how to protect them from all of this stuff-all of these men who have violated the very sacred trust they have been given. I have to focus on some of the leaders who are worthy of the honors- Archbishop Romero, Dom Helder Camera, Bishop Gumbleton, the Jesuits who were murdered in Central America for their commitment to the poor, and many more. We can’t let the scoundrels take center stage. I’m going to rent the movie “Shoes of the Fisherman” and watch it with them tonight. More for myself than tehm.
Be well.
March 1, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Amen Vinnie.
My daughters are doing a project for their CCD class where they have to make a poster of the Church’s hierarchy and include a brief description of each position from Pope to Deacon. They describe all positions as “Holy men who live a holy life” and are “called by God to lead the people of the Church” (their words). It’s requiring great restraint on my part to not challenge their descriptions. I want them to love their faith and their Church and I don’t know how to protect them from all of this stuff-all of these men who have violated the very sacred trust they have been given. I have to focus on some of the leaders who are worthy of the honors- Archbishop Romero, Dom Helder Camera, Bishop Gumbleton, the Jesuits who were murdered in Central America for their commitment to the poor, and many more. We can’t let the scoundrels take center stage. I’m going to rent the movie “Shoes of the Fisherman” and watch it with them tonight. More for myself than them.
Be well.
March 2, 2008 at 12:40 am
A canon law case against Bishop John McCormack and Auxiliary Bishop Francis Christian for violation of some of the canons cited above was filed in 2003 by 20 New Hampshire Catholics. We believe it is the only one of its kind. Not unexpectedly, it has gone nowhere. Still, the research and exchange of letters with various members of the hierarchy and certain “congregations” or departments in Rome is highly instructive of what to expect. In some lights, the responses are fine examples of the either the highest or lowest form the bureaucratic mind can assume, depending on your frame of reference.
The full text with supporting documentation is online at http://www.nhcatholics.org/download3May2005.htm , the website of NH Catholics for Moral Leadership. NHCML itself did not file the case, but a number of signatories were members of the group.
When it comes to Rome, secrecy prevails. We were told not to tell anyone we even filed the case, and indeed we did not until it became clear it was a futile exercise. There is no trial hearing as we understand it, where live testimony and cross-examination take place. It is all done in exchanges of written papers. If decisions are rendered, they may not be revealed for months, or who knows how long. Forget transparency.
For a more complete account of the delays and politics of canon law, read “Vows of Silence” by Jason Berry and the late Gerald Renner. The book relates the case of sexual abuse charges by survivors of Marcial Maciel, the recently deceased founder of the Legion of Christ religious order. The merits of the case, the facts on the ground, are hardly the focus. The impact on the “faithful” and how things appear relative to the power and reputation of the hierarchy are far more germane.
What makes our canon case worth the effort (and by inference yours, should you proceed) is to have the full record on the record, so there can be no question of what the Vatican was informed about, when, and the inaction that followed. Making sure there is internet access to whatever is filed and eventually ignored also helps researchers in the future. Our most potent force is the truth. Also, your efforts might make a personnel file, or alternately, diocesan secret archives. Exposing lies is always a good of its own.
One ancillary point to bear in mind is that a bishop holds the plenitude of all executive, legislative and juridical power IN HIS PERSON. More than one canonist has pointed out to us that essentially, canon law means what a bishop wants it to mean. Straining gnats of interpretation and jurisdiction and technicality and liability and procedure mock the real as it exists in God, leaving but a shadow of the substance of a claim.
Rarely is there what I would define as justice. It’s their game, not ours. Still, every once in a great eternity, a case might prove to be the exception. But when it is, watch for the bishop to spin his participation in the winning side.
March 2, 2008 at 1:31 am
Sounds like an assignment for Saint Tom Doyle. Not that he hasn’t given so much of himself already.
March 2, 2008 at 5:29 am
Vinnie: in 2003-2004, a period of time which encompassed more than a year, a number of New Hampshire Catholics, stating specific canon laws, attempted to remove NH`s bishop John McCormack and auxiliary Francis Christian, as you suggest. (click on http://www.nhcatholics.org/download3May2005.htm)
The simple reason for “failure” was that the Vatican would not accept the premise that canon law is a means of recourse for laity use toward this end.
As you have stated above, no bishop or cardinal “with a spine” is present in church hierarchy.
Simply said, they make the law, and they enforce the law – or not!
March 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm
It would be interesting to
have a canon lawyer explain
whether, & if so, how, a layperson
could bring a proceeding in
a church tribunal seeking redress
in the situation Vinnie describes?
Any canon lawyers out there up
to it?
March 3, 2008 at 1:12 am
By the way, there is precedent for removing bishops despite the nonsense you hear to the opposite. I t was created (By sheer coincidence, by Benedict XIV)
At any rate after much searching, here is the rite for getting rid of a cardinals, bishops and archbishops
Website for Latin:
http://members.aol.com/liturgialatina/pontificale/092.htm
Website for English and Latin
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/March00/Inbox.html
These rules were written by Benedict XIV. This is what the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia had to say about Benedict XIV who wrote these procedures for getting rid of errant bishops: “Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar… his enormous application coupled with more than ordinary cleverness of mind made him one of the most erudite men of his time and gave him the distinction of being perhaps the greatest scholar among the popes.”
It looks to me like this guy was well aware of the evil that could exist under a red hat. It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is precedent for removing bishops who sexually abuse and those like Law who have abused their office. The following are the first two deprivations cited in the text:
“We deprive thee of the rights and privileges of the episcopal dignity, symbolized in this pallium, since thou hast abused them.”
[Then, even if the degradandus be a mere bishop, the degrading prelate removes his miter, saying:]
We strip thy head of this miter, emblem of the episcopal dignity, since thou hast befouled it by thy ill government.
March 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I would encourage Vinnie Nauheimer to get the ball rolling. Put it on the record. Ideally, for the whole church, and for the improvement of our pathetic and self-serving hierarchy. But you should also do it for yourself, for your peace of mind. Don’t give them the satisfaction of running you out of town. You are the church, just as much as they are.
As Carolyn says, “Our most potent force is the truth.” Amen. The truth has a way of bubbling up.
Our small church here in western massachusetts was closed very abruptly and unfairly, with little to no lay involvement. We protested. The track record of all that happened went to the bishop, who did nothing. He would not even send us a copy of the decree. We were encouraged to collapse in a heap, “nothing you can do”, yada yada. Instead, we went to Rome.
You must understand that the Roman Catholic church has a very peculiar set of rules. As Carolyn says, you are encouraged to “tell no one” and send information only to the Congregation for the Clergy (who supposedly watch over the parishes). This is ostensibly for propriety and to avoid giving scandal, but the real purpose appears to be to keep everything within the loop.
If changes are warranted, the higher ups simply tap the offending bishop or priest on the shoulder, pass the word, and, very quietly, changes are made. For example, Fr. Abuser might be shuffled off to another parish. Or, in the case of a disputed merger, Fr. My-Way-Or-The-Highway might suddenly have an epiphany and do a 180 on his opposition to the merger. The laity are left scratching their head, and wondering why, but what has really happened is that the laity have been listened to. They just don’t know it. This hiding of information keeps the laity off-balance and weak.
We did file an appeal, but decided to go against the grain by also informing those at the local level (bishop, pastor, parish council), so that the flow of information was not restricted. This was done in the belief that the information is as important as the dispensation from on high. We copied everyone everything of importance.
What happened next was sort of interesting. The papal nuncio in Washington (though whom you file the papers) was prompt, efficient and fair, processing paperwork faithfully within days. Within a few months we had our answers from Rome, wheraras the local bishop had ignored us and dragged us out for years. I know “months” is not much better than “years”, but still.
In the decree which denied our recourse (you knew that was going to happen, didn’t you?) we received some very interesting information. In substantiating the decree, the Congregation repeated the falsehoods that we had already heard from the local clergy, no doubt relying on their word, but more interesting, we learned that our pastor, who had steadfastly maintained that the decision to close was all because of the bishop, and that he (the pastor) opposed it, had actually sent a letter to the bishop recommending our closure! This was one of the “proofs” cited to us to justify the closing!
Naturally, we are appealing the decree. Will we win? Probably not. However, our experience does prove that the truth has a way of bubbling up. We know that our bishop has plans to close more parishes, indeed there is a very large movement in the U.S. to ignore “parishes” altogether. Many bishops now define them as “communities” or sometimes “established communities”, because that makes it a whole lot easier to control them. Nevertheless, parishes have rights.
Our experience also proves that new information may come to light. Finally, it proves that if you keep plugging away, you can chip away at this system. When we started, we were told that no lay people can file a recourse, and that we would not hear back one word from Rome. Not true.
So, if you have been wronged, say so. Tell them off, and state the case. It won’t hurt, and it may help. Don’t give them the satisfaction of collapsing in a heap, because that’s exactly what they want you to do.
April 1, 2008 at 4:05 pm
All this raises many questions. Isn’t the obvious answer to abandon the Catholic Church? The Pew Foru m now tells us that a third of all those raised Catholic in the US are now former Catholics. And that one American in ten is a former Catholic.