I think we may have discussed this before, but perhaps not. A reader alerted me to this, saying that although the document in question had been promulgated in April, NCR(eporter) had just recently run an article on it.
There is perhaps no stronger condemnation uttered by our Lord than that used in regard to leading His “little ones” astray. He says unequivocally: “But if a man is a cause of stumbling to one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:5-7) I am certain our Lord’s word to a Bishop who knowingly or negligently permitted such a person to be an official minister in His Church would be even more severe.
12. These words have often been cited in reference to the scandal that has arisen due to the abuse of children by members of the clergy. The responsibility for that scandal has been placed at the feet of Bishops with the charge that they did not do enough to prevent the abuse and that they were not conscientious enough in monitoring and punishing the aberrant actions of their priests. The degree to which this perception is justified varies from one Bishop and from one Diocese to another. God must ultimately be the judge. The truth seems to be that there was an excess of compassion for erroneous priests,
a defect of concern for the children who were repeatedly put at risk and a lack of resolve to deal with manifest sinfulness.13. As I have reflected and prayed about these matters for the past year I have become increasing convinced that there may be another much more subtle form of episcopal negligence which also has the potential to harm children, not only emotionally and physically, but primarily spiritually. When our Lord warned about causing His little ones to stumble He certainly would have known, with great sorrow, of the present circumstances. I am convinced that causing the little ones to stumble could also apply when those commissioned by the Church to be witnesses to and examples for them give witness to values or beliefs incompatible with the authentic teachings of the Church. Even if these persons accurately teach the truths of the Church in their words, the witness of their lives and their expression of ‘personal opinions’ contrary to Church teaching speak much more loudly and children are led, if not completely astray, at least into confusion.
And on another matter, the same reader sends another article about Bishop Vasa
Oregon circuit Judge Michael Adler ruled May 14 that Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, a largely-rural diocese in eastern Oregon, can transfer legal ownership of parish properties to the parishes despite pending multimillion dollar sexual abuse lawsuits against the diocese. According to a Catholic News Service report, Bishop Vasa testified that under the prevailing practice, the bishop is technically incorporated as the sole legal owner of a diocese. Parishioners are decreasing their contributions, fearing diocesan funds could be depleted through possible court settlements. To stem the financial loss, the bishop had recourse to canon law and a decree of the Vatican’s Congregation of the Council (29 July, 1911), preferring that title to United States church properties be vested in a board of trustees as a legal form replacing the corporation sole model.
…Serious questions abound. Is the bishop’s tactic a principled conversion to the teaching of subsidiarity within the church, respecting the theological and governance rights of all Catholics as taught by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 social encyclical: Quadragesimo Anno? Or is it a pragmatic ploy to evade legal responsibilities by shielding church assets from those morally and civilly entitled to benefit from them in compensation for crimes of abuse? Is Bishop Vast a latter-day hero defending parishioners’ subsidiary rights or an artful dodger sidestepping compensatory justice in a scheme smacking of an ecclesiastical shell game?
Read Previous Post