The Inside Story Of How Rome Ousted A Bold Bush Bishop. When the Vatican effectively sacked an admired bishop in the bush, it raised questions about justice, and about how Roman discipline will shape the future of the Catholic Church in Australia. “Benedict says to me, ‘You are very gifted, you are very practical, you've got a role to play in the life of the Church, and it's God's will that you should resign.’” Bishop Bill Morris is telling me about the face-to-face meeting he had with Pope Benedict XVI prior to being sacked as Bishop of Toowoomba in May 2011 on the grounds of "defective pastoral leadership.
" The popular Queensland bishop had refused repeated demands for his resignation by three senior cardinals in the Vatican curia. His removal has caused widespread outrage throughout the Catholic Church in Australia, dismay that shows little sign of abating any time soon. “Under the present discipline, bishops are regarded as nothing more than branch managers.” Photo by Patrick Hamilton Photo by Vincenzo Pinto /AFP/Getty Images − Bill Carter QC. Pope broke canon law dismissing bishop, say experts. Exceeded his authority ... Pope Benedict XVI. Photo: Reuters THE Pope acted against natural justice and the Catholic Church's own canon law when he sacked Bill Morris as Bishop of Toowoomba last May, two expert independent reports have found. The Queensland Supreme Court judge W.J. Carter found that Bishop Morris was denied procedural fairness and natural justice and his treatment was "offensive" to the requirements of both civil and canon law.
He wrote about one unsigned Vatican letter to the bishop: "One could not imagine a more striking case of a denial of natural justice". He found that Pope Benedict had breached canon law and exceeded his authority in removing Bishop Morris without finding him guilty of apostasy, heresy or schism and without following the judicial procedures canon law requires. Advertisement He never saw any of the charges against him and never had a chance to defend himself. Both reports were commissioned by Bishop Morris's supporters in Toowoomba. In the Light of the Law. Procès en nullité de la condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc: Étude juridique des ... - Saint Joan (of Arc) L’influence du cardinal Ratzinger sur la révision du système pénal canonique.
Mais qu’est-ce donc qu’une excommunication? Le mot, décidément, fait la Une des gazettes, à défaut d’être dans l’air du temps. Les excommunications, aujourd’hui, il y en a manifestement trop, ou trop peu, on dés-excommunie les méchants et on excommunie les gentils, bref, la situation est confuse et, à dire vrai, peu emballante. Plutôt que de prendre parti sur l’affaire brésilienne (d’autres l’ont fait ici, ici et ici par exemple), je me propose de m’adresser à un lecteur fictif présumé ignorant, et de lui faire le topo sur l’excommunication en soi. Je ne promets pas une partie de rigolade, mais la science avant tout, et chacun tirera, s’il le souhaite, les conclusions qu’il voudra. «Enlevez le pervers du milieu de vous» Pour comprendre ce qu’est une excommunication, l’erreur fatale serait de commencer par s’adresser à un canoniste. Il aurait bien sûr une réponse toute prête: l’excommunication est la plus grave des censures ecclésiastiques, par laquelle quelqu’un est exclu de la communion des fidèles.
Et, tiens! Hors de la communion. Some reactions to Fr. Orsy's comments on the Phoenix abortion case. Resources on Canon 915. The Phoenix abortion case. The irony (no, make that, the hubris and hypocrisy) of "Catholics for Free Choice", a group notoriously dedicated to disregarding the right to life of pre-born babies, criticizing a Catholic bishop for allegedly disregarding a hospital administrator's right to a good reputation after she admitted her cooperation in the killing of an innocent baby, is, well, beyond comment.
So let's just move on. To follow the discussion below, one needs to know that, in late 2009, a Sr. Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, apparently formally cooperated in the direct abortion of a baby in the hospital. My observations: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. But Bp. Sr. Mozilla Firefox. In the Light of the Law: a canon lawyer's blog on current issues Blog Archives 2010 Thursday, December 23, 2010 Toward clarifying the canonical status of Sr. As more of the record concerning the canonical situation of Sr. First, whatever was McBride’s status per 1983 CIC 1331 § 1 as one (probably) laboring under a latae sententiae excommunication (and, yes, I am happy to renew my call for the elimination of automatic sanctions), her status as one laboring under a declared excommunication is governed chiefly by 1983 CIC 1331 § 2.
Second, McBride’s reconciliation (for which we should all pray) is not simply a question of moral theology and treatable, therefore, in sacramental Confession; her juridic status is now changed to the point where, for the remission of her sanction, Olmsted must play a role either directly (c. 1355 § 1, n. 1) or in consultation with another local ordinary (c. 1355 § 1, n. 2). Abortion, on the other hand, is an all-or-nothing type of crime. Bp. 1. 2. 3. Again. Aep. Bp. Olmsted, Canon 216, and St. Joseph's Hospital. From the Bishop’s Statement we learn that: 1. The problems in regard to compliance with Catholic moral teaching at Catholic Healthcare West institutions are apparently not limited to St.
Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix. Significant problems at CHW’s Chandler Regional Hospital in Arizona were flagged by Olmsted seven years ago (!) , to no avail. 2. 3. From the Bishop’s Decree we see that: Canon 216, as predicted, is being invoked, and Olmsted is already signaling that he is prohibiting the use of the word Catholic “in any way” by St. Olmsted is plainly grounding his actions today on his responsibility to determine what is, and is not, Catholic in the territory entrusted to him (I might add, entrusted to him by Christ, through the authority of the Church, and for which entrustment he must someday render an accounting to God. Other good comments: American Papist; American Life League Radio interview (22 Dec 2010) with Bp. "Necessity" does not canonically excuse intrinsically evils acts like abortion.
Their predecessor-in-part 1917 CIC 2205, and two classic canonical commentaries (Michiels and Wernz-Vidal) to show that canon law recognizes the "doctrine of necessity". That's all fine, though no one I know disputes that canon law (like every other legal system worthy of the name) has a "doctrine of necessity". The question is rather when and how "necessity" can be plead.
Now, to get right to my point, "necessity" cannot be plead as exculpatory* of an intrinsically evil action like abortion. In demonstration whereof, I can cite the same authorities invoked by Doyle, Michiels and Wernz-Vidal.Michiels (five pages past the passage quoted by Doyle) writes: "necessity [under Canon 2205] is never said to excuse from intrinsically evil acts prohibited by the natural law itself," and, just a couple pages later, Michiels explicitly lists abortion as an act whose intrinsically evil character prevents "necessity" from being urged as an excuse. 2.
*Scholion on 1983 CIC 1324.1.5. One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi. Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise inclined to invoke the law to hesitate doing so. I understand their concern, and have argued elsewhere that enforcement of Canon 915 is not as simple as some seem to believe.
But, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good, I am convinced that one has to start what one might call the 'national application'* of Canon 915 somewhere, and that the best case to start with is that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Update, 26 March: This post now presented in French at Americatho.org. Replies to Ron Modras' six questions on excommunication. No single individual, indeed, no medium-sized office of people, would suffice to provide adequate replies to the mostly-junk theology routinely put out by the National Catholic Reporter.
But rather than curse the darkness, I light here a candle against a single paragraph of Ronald Modras, “Does excommunication do any good?” , NCRep on-line 12 July 2010. Modras asks: “If a girl becomes the victim of a date rape and takes the morning-after pill, is she excommunicated? And if so, why is she excommunicated and not the rapist? Or is she excommunicated? Is Zapp now excommunicated for leaving the church as an institution but not as a community of faith? Does opting out of paying his church taxes endanger his immortal soul? 1. 2. Rapists are not excommunicated for the same reason that arsonists, embezzlers, rioters, bank robbers, drunk drivers, counterfeiters, polluters, traitors—the list could go on—are not excommunicated: because states adequately punish these crimes. 3. 4. 5. 6.