To that, I have replied,
Very true. Of course, we are not judging him in the canonical sense. However, as Catholics who actually believe in the Faith, we are calling for him to resign. I would say that we are amply within our rights under Canon 212,
Quote:§2 Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.
§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
Our spiritual needs (§2) definitely include having a Shepherd at the Head of the Church and not a protector of ravening wolves.
Under (§3) I would say that we have the duty to manifest our views for the good of the Church, a good which requires a Pope who does not teach heresy, making Christ, the Fathers, the Doctors, and the Magisterium into liars, and who shepherds the Church, not runs it like a dictator.
Someone has said in another thread that the Church is a monarchy. Very true, and in a monarchy the prince is a father and protector to his people, just as Francis ought to be, not a dictator who cooperates with the enemies of the kingdom at every turn as he's turned out to be.
Isn't Francis subject to civil laws for covering up sexual abuses of the clergy under his jurisdiction? Isn't he accountable to civil authorities? Isn't he liable for his neglect to act to prevent abuses? He can't simply "refuse" to offer explanation. Perhaps this matter should be taken up by civil lawyers.
ReplyDeleteNo, as the Head of State of the independent nation of the Vatican City he is definitely NOT subject to civil law. He is subject only to the law of the Vatican City, which is summed up in Conan 1404.
DeleteIn fact, I would fight to the death any attempt to subject him to civil law of another State. Can you imagine the damage to the Church that would result if it were established that the Pope was answerable to any other civil authority? That's exactly he reason men fought and died to keep the Papal States free in 1870.
Thank you for your comment. I didn't suggest that Francis be subject to civil law of another state. But isn't neglect of duty of a public officer, resulting in serious consequences for other people, punishable by the law of the Vatican City? Or, is the Head of the Vatican City immune from liability for potentially criminal behaviour? If, for example, Francis hit somebody by car in the Vatican City, would he be liable? Or, is he above the law? Not accountable for the failure to perform his duties? Anybody else in the position of authority would be held accountable. I am just looking at the situation in strictly legal terms.
ReplyDeleteI will probably write another post based on this comment, but shortly, No, he is not responsible. This is not unusual in monarchies which the Vatican City is. In British law the Queen cannot be held liable for criminal charges because all prosecutions are brought in her name. A case of Regina vs Regina would be nonsense.
DeleteIn the Spanish Constitution, Section 56, Paragraph 3, it says, 'The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable.' There are comparable provisions in other monarchical Constitutions.
In the case of the Vatican City, the 'Constitution' is the Fundamental Law, which, in its very first article says, Art. 1 §1 declares that “The Supreme Pontiff, Sovereign of Vatican City State, has the fullness of legislative, executive and judicial powers.” In other words the Pope IS the law.
Interestingly, in the monarchies based on divine rights of kings, the king being the source of the law, could not break it and could not be removed. With the popes, however, there seems to be a way out: "straying from the faith" implies the loss of power for the bishop of Rome (Canon 1364). According to a prominent Polish theologian, fr. Benedykt Jacek Huculak OFM, Francis crossed the boundary of formal heresy in 2015, when the Vatican Curia announced that the Jews don't have to accept the teaching of the Catholic Church as necessary for their salvation.
ReplyDeleteAs for the original point of this exchange, it seems to me that the ideas of making Francis accountable to state laws reflect desperation of many common Catholics in an unprecedented situation, rather than their conscious endorsement of any state intervention into the Vatican City internal affairs.
I'm having some vision problems right now. When they clear up, I'll answer this at length.And, as I said, probably use it as a springboard for another post.
Delete