I got here following a link from Mark Shea's blog, so I don't know SNAP or Cardinal George for that matter, but this statement is wrong:
"Their view that the Church structure is an absolute monarchy reflects an ignorance of basic ecclesiology (they might try reading Lumen gentium) and their claims that a bishop's authority over his diocese is arbitrary and absolute shows an ignorance of Canon Law (perhaps they might consult CIC 1740-1753)."
Seems to me their view is accurate. The sources you cite, indeed the whole code of canon law, nowhere identify any restraints upon the behavior of bishops (1740ff. pertain to priests only, as is obvious from the context), nor penalties for misconduct. Even CIC 401 will only "request" that bishops resign if they are unfit to carry out their office; there is no provision short of excommunication by the Holy See to discipline them. Since this apparently only ever happens when a bishop directly attacks Rome's authority (i.e., never for offenses against their flock), a bishop can say "l'eglise, c'est moi" without much of a stretch.
Craig,
I'm not sure if we are reading the same documents. The reference to Lumen gentium is a discussion about the nature and structure of the Church. It presented as the people of God which is formed into a hierarchical structure for the purpose of service. It certainly contradicts SNAP's caricature of the Church as a purely monarchical structure.
CIC 1740ff. clearly restrict the bishop's authority when it comes to removing a priest from his parish. CIC 1742ff. require an investigation, then the bishop's discussing it with two priests from the diocesan council, it then requires him to paternally pursuade the priest, give him 15 days to consider, if the priest doesn't respond the bishop must renew the request and give the priest more time, only then can the bishop issue a decree of removal. If the priest refutes the case, CIC 1745 lists the requirements the bishop must meet in order to validly remove the priest. This doesn't sound like the "l'eglise, c'est moi" caricature to me.
And if the bishop ignores the canons, what then? See, I don't have a problem with Lumen Gentium. I don't want to make the Church a democracy, merely get it to honor its own principles.
What I have a problem with is this: bishops can be canonical fundamentalists as it suits them or canonical liberals as it suits them, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. They can keep male concubines in the rectory, they can use the diocesan funds to pay off buggery, they can lie and conspire to hide pederasty from the cops, and so far they are free to do so without even being rebuked publicly by name by any of their brother bishops, much less disciplined by Rome. Who will speak for the littlest of these in the Church?
What I have a problem with is this: bishops can be canonical fundamentalists as it suits them or canonical liberals as it suits them, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Except for the Pope, this is true. However, because some bishops abuse it does not mean that every bishop is guilty of it or that the structure must be changed. The was one of the errors of the Protestant Reformation. In many ways, for good or bad, our bishops often reflect our culture and the state of zeal in the local Church. Laity can and must do more in terms of prayer, support for good priests, forming our children well (who will become the next leaders), and more sacrificial prayer. Some by their comments seem to presuppose American activism is the answer when it is not always so. This is especially the case when it comes to dealing with the bishop.
They can keep male concubines in the rectory, they can use the diocesan funds to pay off buggery, they can lie and conspire to hide pederasty from the cops, and so far they are free to do so without even being rebuked publicly by name by any of their brother bishops, much less disciplined by Rome. Who will speak for the littlest of these in the Church?
Luckily these extremes have been relatively rare, the press coverage notwithstanding. First, I would say that I would agree that there is little public rebuking but we do not have access to what happens privately. Nevertheless, discipline of a bishop from Rome of which the public becomes aware, is rare for an important reason. There is a delicate balance between the Pope exercising his universal authority and undermining the authority of the local bishops. He must lead as a father figure among other fathers of the Church, not as a general in the military or the CEO of a corporation.
There is a reason the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years with the same teachings, same structure, same Sacraments. It is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. When we've done all we can do, we need to continue to pray and trust...I know, for Americans this is a very hard thing to ask.
Commenting by HaloScan
