Dear Bishop, you're fired. Love, the Pope.

[Pappa]

Mistermack, you're a deplorable moron and a bigot.

Svartalf, this is a reminder that personal attacks are against the rules.

[Svartalf]

You've got a very naive view of the catholic church Svartalf.
I was brought up a catholic, and I know very well how they operate. Any instruction that could be contentious is passed down back channels by word of mouth, never written down. But it's still expected to be obeyed.
The golden rule in abuse cases has been to protect the church at all costs. Child-buggering priests are moved on, inflicted on other innocent parishes, not sacked. All to protect the church. Because they now know how big the compensation cases can get.

This Bishop committed the cardinal sin of admitting liability. That's why he HAD to go. Because he might have cost them MONEY !!

Your'e quite right, they couldn't sack him for doing the right thing. So they've sacked him for a SUGGESTION he made FIVE YEARS AGO.

Maybe I am a moron, maybe the pope is a saint. The last one soon will be, and he sanctioned MASSIVE child abuse to protect his precious "church". Such are the saints of today.

and you don't understand them at all... to completely remove a cleric, and a bishop no less, from pastoral duty requires acts that are egregious violations of doctrine and policy.
Advocating a change of policy that's been rehashed to death and that the top hierarchy has repeatedly let it be known it was admant on keeping as it is, that's tantammount to revolting against the pope, and grounds for it.
Taking responsibility for a bad thing... well, that may not be preferred conduct, but it shows a man with a sense of responsibility, of care, people skills... the kind of guy you want on the first lines of pastoral care, not out of it, especially now that one of the big problems of the Church is personnel. Maybe remove him from anywhere sensitive, transfer him to Africa or something, make sure he never gets to be cardinal... but remove him from pastoral care for that? bad idea, waste of a capable man.
At worst, if the taking of responsibility had been done against express orders, he'd be made bishop in partibus... but that's the most, because what he did contravened no dogma or official policy, and firing a bishop outright is far too public a punishment for a misbehavior that would be dealt with internally.

[mistermack]

and you don't understand them at all... to completely remove a cleric, and a bishop no less, from pastoral duty requires acts that are egregious violations of doctrine and policy.
Advocating a change of policy that's been rehashed to death and that the top hierarchy has repeatedly let it be known it was admant on keeping as it is, that's tantammount to revolting against the pope, and grounds for it.
Taking responsibility for a bad thing... well, that may not be preferred conduct, but it shows a man with a sense of responsibility, of care, people skills... the kind of guy you want on the first lines of pastoral care, not out of it, especially now that one of the big problems of the Church is personnel. Maybe remove him from anywhere sensitive, transfer him to Africa or something, make sure he never gets to be cardinal... but remove him from pastoral care for that? bad idea, waste of a capable man.
At worst, if the taking of responsibility had been done against express orders, he'd be made bishop in partibus... but that's the most, because what he did contravened no dogma or official policy, and firing a bishop outright is far too public a punishment for a misbehavior that would be dealt with internally.

I'm sure you're sincere, and believe all that.
It would be nice if the people running the Catholic church WERE like that.
But I know of a very different church, that defends it's interests in a much more ruthless way.

I can't imagine the church that YOU describe tolerating and protecting pedophile priests and moving them on to abuse in new parishes. The church you describe would make sure that they could never harm another child.
The church that you describe would not hide the truth, and fight tooth and nail to deny victims the compensation they deserve.

I'm sure they are caring, moral people who have the interests of their flocks at heart.
Trouble is, THEY don't exist, except in your head.
History supports my version.

[Svartalf]

You don't get it... to start with, that bishop looks like a caring honest guy with the interest of the flock at heart.
Which is why his actions are not what got him suspended. Even if the higherarchy is entierly made up of evil bastards, as the top tiers of any major power structure tend to be, they don't want the common people to realize it, and guys like him are the perfect front.

That's why, if his goodie two shoes tendencies get in the way of the Greater Good of the church, he won't be punished publicly. Send him where he can do that "good" thing and make the church look good without endangering higher objectives, certainly. Flush his career down the toilet so his excessive morality doesn't cause trouble at higher levels, of course. But remove him from office in ways that let people add 2+2? Ludicrous.

[mistermack]

You don't get it... to start with, that bishop looks like a caring honest guy with the interest of the flock at heart.
Which is why his actions are not what got him suspended. Even if the higherarchy is entierly made up of evil bastards, as the top tiers of any major power structure tend to be, they don't want the common people to realize it, and guys like him are the perfect front.

That's why, if his goodie two shoes tendencies get in the way of the Greater Good of the church, he won't be punished publicly. Send him where he can do that "good" thing and make the church look good without endangering higher objectives, certainly. Flush his career down the toilet so his excessive morality doesn't cause trouble at higher levels, of course. But remove him from office in ways that let people add 2+2? Ludicrous.

The way I see it, he HAD to be sacked. He's publicly accepted liability for the abuse by this teacher.
The vatican probably have NO intention of accepting liability. In a way, they have a case.
A teacher is different to a priest. And there is no record mentioned of them protecting him.
It's not crystal clear why they should be liable.

But when the compensation claims get to court, how can they fight it, if they have a serving bishop who has admitted liability? They wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
So they had the problem of what to do. He needs to not just exit the scene, but to be no longer a bishop. It's not really punishment, it's a practical problem about a LOT of money.

They could hardly sack him for accepting liability and helping the victims. That wouldn't impress anybody in court. So they had to find something else. They dug around, and found a quote from five years ago, that they could use as an excuse.

Now they can fight the cases, and just argue that the ex-bishop was giving his own opinion when he accepted liability, not that of the church. They could even argue that he was a bit irresponsible and disaffected.
They couldn't do that, if he was still serving as a bishop.

[Svartalf]

Obviously you haven't the slightest understanding of either the running of major administrative structures, or the politics and PR aspects involved. $

The church is fossilized in rule and bylaw, habit and precedent... taking responsibility for malfeasance, is simply not an offence that can get you that punishment, especially at bishop level and where you yourself did not commit the deed.

Priests are hard to get nowadays, let alones ones cut to be bishops, you don't cast a bishop into the trash bin unless there is evidence he's really not good for anything. A heretic or rebellious one would get the sack, one that is misguided gets taught his lesson and sent to do something he can be useful at.

And taking that responsibility gave that guy great image in the public eye, sacking him is not good for the image of the church... promoting him to archbishop in Kinshasa or Bamako... would be more the way to get rid of him.

[mistermack]

Obviously you haven't the slightest understanding of either the running of major administrative structures, or the politics and PR aspects involved. $

The church is fossilized in rule and bylaw, habit and precedent... taking responsibility for malfeasance, is simply not an offence that can get you that punishment, especially at bishop level and where you yourself did not commit the deed.

Priests are hard to get nowadays, let alones ones cut to be bishops, you don't cast a bishop into the trash bin unless there is evidence he's really not good for anything. A heretic or rebellious one would get the sack, one that is misguided gets taught his lesson and sent to do something he can be useful at.

And taking that responsibility gave that guy great image in the public eye, sacking him is not good for the image of the church... promoting him to archbishop in Kinshasa or Bamako... would be more the way to get rid of him.

Well, I'm sure we won't agree on that. But I think that when compared to how the vatican has acted, this is right in line with their recent history.
Moving him, or promoting him wouldn't solve their problem at all. It would make it worse.
How could you fight the cases if an ARCH Bishop had accepted liability?
The only proof will be if the church fights the inevitable compensation cases.
(remember that they recently were threatening ex-communication just for REPORTING that you had been violated).
I'm quite sure that all sorts of subtle bullying and pressure will be brought to bear on the abused pupils and their families. But if that fails, they will fight it tooth and nail in court. I'm perfectly confident of that.

[Svartalf]

How you can have been raised Catholic and yet so completely understand nothing to the mindset and working of the church is beyond me.

[Hermit]

Mistermack, you're a deplorable moron and a bigot.

That was uncalled for.

Also, what article do you refer to? I saw no such things in the OP one.

Since you missed it, I quote the opening in full, and underline the link for you. Click on it, read it, and then apologise to Mistermack. He was totally correct with his observations.

That'll learn him to think women are in any way equal to men in the eyes of God.

I can understand the Pope's decision, of course, the female priests would have to use strap-ons to bugger little boys, and that's an abomination before God.

No, he was not. He was mendacious and fallacious in his observations. There is no evidence whatsoever in the article that his dismissal was for any reason other than his apostate stance on women priests and married priests.

The record speaks for itself: Paedophile priests get systematic assistance to evade the consequences of their crimes by bishops and cardinals (including the cardinal who is currently the pope. Bishop Morris failed to follow the policy and got sacked. Having also had the temerity to suggest the Vatican consider admitting married men and women generally to the priesthood served as a convenient pretext to knock him off.

Speaking of the latter issue, it seems you might want to reply to this post. To spare you the effort of having to click on the link, here it is again:

The Catholic Church ain't a democracy. It's dogma is, according to those in charge, dictated by God. So until God comes along and amends his rules for being a member of the church, those in charge are perfectly justified in sticking with what the rules have been for 2000 years.

Therefore, a Bishop who doesn't believe in church doctrine cannot be a Bishop in the church.

Behold the Seth in full bloom. Looks like you need to be corrected on a couple more of your flights of fancy. Celibacy is not a doctrine, let alone a 2000 year old one. Look at that:

"1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)" - I Timothy 3:1-5

From the Wikipedia: "The earliest textual evidence of the forbidding of marriage to clerics and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the fourth-century decrees of the Council of Elvira and the later Council of Carthage." circa 305 and 390 respectively.

From the Wikipedia again: "Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical law and not a doctrine, it can, in principle, be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, both the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and his predecessors, have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change."

'cept the catholic church does have married priests - so not a matter of dogma. Married RC priests are what you get when married priests in other sects (eg Lutherans, Church of England) decide to join the RCs and are accepted.

Interesting assertion. I'll check it out with my Catholic sources and get back to you.

From the Wikipedia again: "Exceptions are sometimes made (including in Latin Rite Catholicism), granted by authority of the Pope, when married Protestant clergy become Catholic."


No matter, I am happy that the Vatican sees fit to sack a bishop for "suggesting the church consider ordaining women and married men" for the priesthood. If anything could increase the catholic church's alienation from its shrinking number of adherents, it would be that overreaction when contrasted with its systematic assistance to the paedophiles among its ranks in escaping detection and prosecution for their actual crimes.