A dear friend recently sent me an email asking me to explain my oft-repeated comment that the Church finds itself in a circumstance and a moment that is without precedence in its history.
She asks this question in the context of his frustration over the fact that the Holy Father has allowed Bishops to resign rather than just removing them from their dioceses for their inept handing of cases involving the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic Clergy.
As I explained to her in my response, an answer to her question has profound implications. Some will be surprising to many of the Catholic faithful.
Many are under the misimpression that the governing structure of the Church is very much like that of a large corporation. But, from all external appearances and the day to day administration, such a misimpression is easily understood.
The fact is that many people work within corporate institutions where there are distinct levels of managerial authority each responsible to higher authority. Accountability for work performance travels up and down the ladder of management’s authority. An obvious example: a worker is accountable for his job to his immediate manager, that manager to his immediate superior, and up the chain of corporate authority to the CEO himself.
Within this familiar framework, one can easily conclude the Church operates the same way, kinda, sorta.
The difference within the hierarchical structure of the Church is our understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
A Priest is, by virtue of his Ordination, configured to Christ and this new “ontological (substanital) character of Priesthood is perpetual and permanent.
A Priest may be reduced to the lay state (his canonical relationship to his Bishop and the Church terminated) but he remains a Priest. He cannot be “fired” from the Priesthood in the same way a person can be fired from his workplace.
An there are even much more profound differences between corporate hierarchy and Church hierarchy when it comes to the issue of authority itself.
A manager has authority by delegation, his responsibilities and obligations given him from the next higher level of administration.
Now, when it comes to the authority of a Bishop, Church teaching is quite emphatic.
Our understanding of Episcopal authority comes to us from the highest teaching authority of the Church: Ecumenical Councils.
The Council Fathers of Vatican II, in keeping with the consistent teachings of the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, teach that a Bishop enjoys the fullness of the Sacrament of Orders (Lumen Gentium, 26) and is head of the local Church entrusted to his care.
A Bishop’s authority is not delegated. A Bishop does not exercise authority that is “borrowed” from the Pope.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law which universally governs the Latin Church states: "In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office."
Again, Vatican Council II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church teaches: “The pastoral office . . . is entrusted to Bishops fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiff, for they exercise the power that they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term Prelates of the people whom they govern”. (Lumen Gentium, 27).
Every Bishop of a local Church governs his diocese in and by virtue of his own authority.
Bishops are not vicars of the Pope, but vicars of Christ in their own diocese. They do not have to get approval from higher authority to govern.
And so, when we hear people speak of Bishops being accountable to the Pope, we must understand that the horizons of that accountability are narrowly defined by Church teaching.
What adds to the complexity of the issue is the fact only the Pope can appoint Bishops and only the Pope can “deprive them office”.
Notice I use the word “deprive” and not “remove” from office.
Why?
Because the teaching and practice of the Church is very specific on this matter.
In general, the Code of Canon Law provides for removal from office (Canons 184, 192-195).
But, “removal” from episcopal office does not, strictly speaking, seem to be possible under the prescription of Canon 416.
Only “privation” from Episcopal office seems possible and only when a Bishop has been tried and found guilty of ecclesiastical crimes.
Only the Pope has authority to judge criminal cases involving Bishops (Canon 1405, 1) and such cases are conducted in strictest confidence (Canon 1455, 1).
As a result, most Canon lawyers agree that privation is a canonical penalty, and therefore is governed by the canons on penal law, as acknowledged in Canon. 196. Thus, when it comes to Bishops, the Code does not contemplate the case of deprivation for other than ecclesiastical crimes.
Since Bishops, as do all members of the faithful, have a fundamental right to defend themselves when accused, the criminal prosecution of alleged ecclesiastical crimes is both complex and lengthy.
A Pope, therefore, cannot simply “fire” or “remove” a Bishop for not managing his diocese properly or efficiently.
And yet, there is another complicating factor which must be considered.
If a Pope were to remove a Bishop from office, that would raise all kinds of theological and ecclesiological questions about the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and Bishops of local Churches. This would further raise issues regarding collegiality and communion with the Church.
The ecumenical implications are of enormous consequence.
Orthodox churches have been responding positively, yet cautiously, to overtures from Rome. Yet, Orthodox Bishops remain wary of Papal authority. They are defensive of their own independence.
A Pope who began “removing bishops from office” for non-performance reasons would cause much consternation and wonderment on the part of Orthodox Bishops regarding the legitimacy of the Bishop of Roman attempting to do so.
And, if the whole matter of the privation of Bishops from office was not a complicated as it is, add to the fact that the Pope himself has been implicated in recent scandals.
The Pope is subject to no one, neither ecclesiastical or secular. His judgments admit to no appeal by anyone, ecclesiastical or secular.
He truly enjoys Supreme Apostolic Authority as well as supreme authority over the secular State of Vatican City.
No one can deprive the Pope of his Office as Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church.
In the recent accusations of Archbishop Vigano, the credibility and the moral authority of this Vicar of Christ has been called into serious question.
The Church has never seen the likes of this before.
How it will be resolved is anyone's guess.
We are walking without firm foundation and there is no model or paradigm of resolution, no precedent the Church can call upon for guidance or direction.
I realize my response to my friend’s question is complicated. But so is the issue she raises and the frustration she expresses with the apparent inaction or resolve on the part of Pope Francis to harshly discipline those Bishops who appear to have failed egregiously in protecting minors within their local Church from sexual abuse by members of their Clergy.
In some small way, I hope this clarifies the issue for her and for other readers of this blogsite.
Her question is indeed the most difficult I have ever had addressed to me in my 44 years of Priesthood both as a Pastor and Canon lawyer myself.
I pray there are wiser jurists and historians who can shed some light on these critical issues facing the Church these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment