www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall This Is Disgraceful !!!

The Roman Catholic Church continues to bring disgrace upon itself http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121069,00.html

I believe that Santa Maria Maggiore is the same church where Bishop Roman Danylak is a "Canon." Make of that what you will.

What a surprise! :rolleyes:


Sam

Well, if I were in charge, I would have told His Eminence to go live as a hermit in a desert somewhere for the rest of his life.

Maybe they are trying to keep an eye on him.

Jason

Were I Pope, I would have deposed His Eminence (along with a few other bishops) without giving him a chance even to resign. But that is me.

I think the top of a pillar in a desert would be the ideal place to put some of these bishops.


Oh my!

Is this the Jesus Prayer in Church Slavonic, or some other similar language? I would have expected Gospodi to be Hospodi, but my knowledge of Church Slavonic is virtually non-existant.

Hospodi pomiluj,
Jason

Lawrence,

I would not judge so quickly. In effect, Cardinal Law has been confined to Rome. As archpriest of one of the major basilica he is required to preside over liturgical celebrations in that basilica.

Nor is this a move to protect Cardinal Law from prosecution because he has had that since the day he was made a cardinal. Cardinals are accorded the diplomatic status of princes of the royal blood, i.e they have diplomatic immunity and can't be tried or imprisoned by anyone other than the Pope according to international law ratified by the Versailles Treaty.

Fr. Deacon Lance

First a question:

Fr. Deacon Lance, I am curious about this diplomatic immunity. Is this in effect for Cardinal Law because he is now "part of the Vatican community" (for lack of better terminology)?

It was my (very limited) understanding that no such immunity from civil law exists for American clergy, but such provisions do exist between various European countries and the Vatican. It is not universal. Would like to know more regarding this caveat/condition in the Treaty of Versailles.

Second a comment...

If you are on good, honest terms with any of the in the know clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, ask them who was one of the Roman hierarchy in the U.S. that in the 1990s was influential in kiboshing the Ruthenian Church's "new" particular law to allow for the ordaining of married men, having it "changed" so that we have to get Rome's permission to do such on a case-by-case basis.

Deacon Lance,

Cardinals, other than any who are formally members of the Vatican's Diplomatic Corps, are accorded no diplomatic status or immunity under US Federal or state statutes (nor for that matter under the laws of any modern nation). They may be charged, indicted, and tried for any criminal offense and, if convicted, are subject to the appropriate penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The privilegium fori (or "privilege of forum"), which extended the rights you describe has been abrogated in practical usage since the late 1800s.

Cardinals who are resident in Rome, inside or outside the Vatican City-State, enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship of the Vatican, which accords them no immunity. They are Princes of the Church, which is an institution; it is the Vatican which is a state and their princely roles and titles do not accrue to the Vatican State.

Article 21 of the Lateran Treaty accorded cardinals the status of princes of the blood and assured the freedom of the conclave. However, the Lateran Treaty solely regularizes relations between the Vatican and Italian governments.

Cardinal Law only escaped a grand jury indictment because the Massachusetts Attorney General was unable to find a statute under which he could be charged, given the law as it was at the time of the cover-up of the alleged offenses.

Many years,

Neil

Any prelate who has caused or been complicit in the kind of shame, injury, spiritual and physical damage as he has should be relegated to a Carthusian monastery in a life of silence and repentance for the rest of his days, and not given an honorary position in Rome, regardless of its overall signficance.

BTW, Benedictus, that is the Jesus Prayer in Slavonic with Russian Old Believer consonant pronunciation.

Ya know, I've always wondered what the Carthusians had done to deserve being stuck with all the malefactors folks have wished on them over the years. The imposed presence of a "prisoner" is more likely to harm a community than to provide "rehabilitation" for a sinner.

I fail to see the harm in Cardinal Law's appointment to this largely titular post. It takes him out of any position of real power or command, and puts him where the Vatican can keep an eye on him - while allowing him to retain some vestige of dignity. None of these are Bad Things.

10 years ago there would have been much less of a flap, because there wasn't such instantaneous distribution of any and all info worldwide - so the appointment would have been buried amongst the dozen or so similar appointments made that day. They had to do SOMETHING with him.

Yes, he presided over a huge mess in Boston. (and I dunno if he will eventually face secular legal sanction) What the Vatican has done here looks a lot like what the military does - when a general is implicated in Bad Things (like the Abu Gharaib fiasco) he or she is less likely to face prosecution than demotion, removal from meaningful command, and derailment of their career.

Jus' my two cents.

Sharon

Moncobyz,

The immunity does not derive from the fact that he is a cleric but because international law recognizes cardinals as princes of the royal blood, and they are accorded that status. The Treaty of Versailles does not contain this language itself but reratifies those previous diplomatic congresses and treaties that decided this.

As to your second question, none that I am aware. One of our own leaked the news quite confrontationally before the official promulgation, EWTN got ahold of it made it appear even more confrontational and the Pope of his own accord placed promulgation on hold and called our Canon Law commission to Rome, who fought to retain the right to ordain married men even though they must be approved by Rome. My feeling is Rome wants to prevent migration of men from the Latin Church to ours for ordination and then subsequent requests to return to the Latin Church. How valid of afear this is I do not know.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ya know, Sharon, I disagree. Monastic penance has worked in the Church for centuries. Rather "byzantine", I know, but I don't see a lot of other punitive options.

And the higher the level of position or office, the higher the level of responsibility for actions that should be assumed.

Rewarding someone an honorific title (that's what an honorific title is, after all, a reward) after completely disgracing the Church by their actions, as well as the physical, spiritual, and economic cost caused by that, is not acceptable at least to me.

When someone commits a crime, they may be very sorry. As a civil society, we generally don't say "we see how sorry you are for commiting a terrible crime, so we have a nice job in Rome for you".

But hey, this is only my two drachmas worth. The Church has apparently already decided.

Diak

I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. Unfortunately now, those who oppose the recent stand by some American Bishops against abortion and homosexual marriage, will surely point fingers at the Church and call it a den of hypocrites.

Perhaps hypocritical is too strong a word, but many (including two Catholic scholars I heard on NPR yesterday) would agree that the Church is indeed tending to "pick and choose" which moral absolutes it would like to champion.

Be that as it may, IMHO, Sharon brings up a good point in that Cardinal Law's appointment seems to be what we in Halychyna might say is "niby czos', niby nicz." Loose translation - kind of something, but not really.

Finally, does the immunity of what you all speak extend to civil actions as well?

Yours,

hal

Neil,

According to James Noonan their privileged status is still accorded them. The status of princes of royal blood was accorded to them long before the Lateran Treaty and was sanctioned by subsequent congresses, treaties and concordats. Of course any country is free to charge, imprison, and try anyone they wish. Communist Yugoslavia certainly did not recognize immunity for Blessed Aloysius.

Fr. Deacon Lance