« Nope | Main | What...did they forget Sam Harris? »
March 23, 2007
On the Cardinal
This week, the story from LA has concerned apparent differences between what Cardinal Mahony told the people of the Archdiocese and what he told the Vatican about an abusing priest. (At least he told the truth to the Vatican, which was working on laicizing the priest - but why lie to the people? That's odd.) The LATimes unpacked it, the Archdiocese responded - but in doing so very blatantly shifted the discussion, ignoring the point. Sort of impressive that they think we're so stupid not to notice. Anyway, the best summary (with links) is from Professor Bainbridge (a law prof, btw), who draws his own conclusions about what the consequences should be:
Canon 387 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church states that:
Mindful that he is bound to give an example of holiness, charity, humility and simplicity of life, the diocesan Bishop is to seek in every way to promote the holiness of Christ's faithful according to the special vocation of each. Since he is the principal dispenser of the mysteries of God, he is to strive constantly that Christ's faithful entrusted to his care may grow in grace through the celebration of the sacraments, and may know and live the paschal mystery.
Can a Bishop who has lied to his flock on such a key matter be said to be in compliance with Canon 387? No. Especially given Mahony's long track record of other misfeasances and malfeasances in connection with the priest sex abuse scandal.
Curiously, there is no express provision in the Canon Law for removal of a diocesan Bishop. Canon 401, § 2, however, states that:
A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.
Mahony's violation of Canon 387 constitutes the requisite "grave reason" such that he should voluntarily resign. If he fails to do so, the Pope clearly has authority under Canon 403 to appoint a coadjutor bishop who would be vested with the bulk of Mahony's responsibilities. Alternatively, despite the absence of a clear answer in canon law, most observers believe that the Pope has authority to remove a bishop for sufficiently grave reason. (Certainly, at the bare minimum, the Pope can "lean on" a bishop to do the right thing.)
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Just FYI, it didn't do much good here in Dallas when JPII appointed a coadjutor. Mahoney's made of the same stuff as Grahmann - he's not leaving till he hits retirement.
Posted by: Mark Windsor at Mar 23, 2007 10:09:19 AM
When I prepare myself to make a good Confession, I always do an examination of conscience. I proceed by considering each of the Ten Earnest Requests in turn.
Posted by: Boko Fittleworth at Mar 23, 2007 10:38:45 AM
This seems to be a matter of wishful thinking. Privation is a severe punishment. To excercise such power on not just any bishop, but the cardinal bishop of one of the wealthiest dioceses in the world ain't gonna happen over a discrepency in detail between two different audiences. Secondly, for the Pontiff to exercise such power, relations with the Orthodox would be set back at least another 50 years. It is not apparent to me that the communication from diocese regarding his priest was materially defective in the first place. There is a big difference between making a claim in a Vatican judicial proceeding and making a glorified press release.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Mar 23, 2007 10:42:16 AM
Well, you could just take away his red hat. He would still run out the clock as Archbishop just not as Cardinal-Archbishop.
Posted by: Jay Conley at Mar 23, 2007 11:37:17 AM
Just how old is Cardinal Mahoney anyway?
Posted by: Mark Andrews at Mar 23, 2007 11:48:04 AM
Mark,
71. Birthday is 2/27/36, so 3 years, 341 days remaining.
Posted by: Paul M at Mar 23, 2007 1:52:26 PM
"but why lie to the people? That's odd."
The answer to the question is that Cardinal Mahoney didn't "lie to the people." To "lie" to someone means that you say something that you know isn't true. That didn't happen here. The two inaccurate statements were in a 155 page "Addendum" that was prepared by the Archdiocese's lawyers. The Addendum summarizes facts and allegations against numerous accused priests; the lawyers based the summaries on "proffers" that were submitted to and vetted by the Court to ensure their accuracy. The Addendum itself says that summaries were prepared by lawyers: "the Archdiocese’s lawyers have prepared the following summaries of information regarding clergy who have been accused of abuse in the current lawsuits subject to the mediation process.”
Thus, Cardinal Mahoney is not the source of the discrepancy and it is highly unlikely that he was aware of it when the 155 page "Addendum" was released.
It is also correct that the mistatements are "odd" if viewed as "lies." The statements did not serve to make the Archdiocese or Cardinal Mahoney look better. As the Caffoe summary reflects, the accused priest was placed on inactive leave shortly after the videotape was reported.
Posted by: Dan at Mar 23, 2007 2:00:20 PM
Ain't gonna happen. The Pope is not ever going to remove or even censur a bishop because he was less than forthcoming in a press release. There are bishops running around who are committing acts of genuine heresy who haven't yet been censured, though I believe that eventually they may be. But "lie" in a press release? Heck the Archbishop probably never even signed off on it. Do you really think that a press release about a pedaphile priest in the U.S. is going to be sent out without a lawyer releasing it? And no lawyer worth his salt is going to let a client admit to any wrongdoing in a press release, no matter what the facts.
Besides Mahoney's got what 3 years until he reaches retirement age? The Church is a 2000 year old institution. It moves slowly and delibertly in most things. Mahoney will be gone before any Vatican action could normally be taken, should the Pope even wish to take an action. His time would be better spent finding a nice orthodox bishop to move in and fix the mess in a couple of years.
Posted by: TerryC at Mar 23, 2007 9:06:23 PM
Secondly, for the Pontiff to exercise such power, relations with the Orthodox would be set back at least another 50 years.
That would make a total of 100, correct? 50 for Cadinal Law; 50 for Cardinal Mahony. And an archbishop ought to be worth about half a cardinal. Why not add Pilarczyk to the mix to make it 125?.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Mar 23, 2007 9:30:43 PM
Cardinal Law accepted a new bishopric. He was not disciplined.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Mar 24, 2007 8:59:56 AM
Cardinal Law accepted a new bishopric. He was not disciplined.
That's nonsense and you know it.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Mar 24, 2007 12:04:18 PM
