The underlying problem with Vos Estis is that the metropolitan knows his suffragans and probably doesn't know the victims, which makes him more likely to think the bishop his friend is innocent and the victims are liars.
The problem has never been that bishops assumed innocence regarding their brother bishops and therefore the victims being liars. The problem has been bishops knowingly covering up and protecting abusers. The underlying problem with Vos Estis is that it concentrates investigative responsibility to the very group that has been covering up for one another.
This is the problem with members of an occupational group judging its own. Doctors judging doctors, teachers judging teachers, policemen judging policemen, lawyers judging lawyers, etc. I recall our local Doctor Fox who I met in 1976. He was in the process of being struck off for the second time for horizontal relations with a lady patient. He got this one pregnant. Surely not even the General Medical Council will give him a third chance? Come 1988 and there was Doctor Fox working as a medical examiner for the Government. Maybe he was allowed only near men.
A teacher for a local school, one of the best in England, was (finally) fired after being caught in bed with a pupil. But he moved on to another school, who had to fire him again. What sort of reference did the first school give?
I've been told that in the United States the only thing a reference can say is whether one worked for them or not and the dates. I have no idea whether that is also the case in England or not. But you have definitely explained why it is necessary to have lay boards to deal with misbehaving members of occupational groups. Such groups tend to protect their own.
The truely staggering part (at the end of the link) is that he was not definitively banned from teaching for all eternity, plus a trillion years. He could reapply in five years' time. The second school, Tanbridge House, apparently knew something as they stipulated in his letter of appointment that he maintain professional boundaries.
The cliche of the bent teacher at old style English private schools was his reference when he got passed on as damaged goods to Private School B. Private School A would write a helpful reference explaining that "Mr Smith has given excellent service as a geography teacher, apart from an isolated indiscretion which I am sure he will not repeat". Even private schools dare not do that now, for fear of the lawyers and damages that would wipe out the school.
Is the Holy Father trying to envision the Church along more of a church of the nations model with less of the central authority that we’ve grown to expect in the Latin expression of the Church? That sounds like a rather ignorant question, I guess, but it’s my honest inquiry.
Para 32 of Evangelii Gaudium of 2013 contains an ominous passage which suggests a massive dilution of central authority in the Church. In fact, you can easily read it as an endorsement of Bishops' Conferences having doctrinal authority of their own. And thus the disintegration of the Church into regional or national fragments. As we have already seen, in a limited way, with the African Bishops and the application of Fiducia Supplicans.
"Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.[37] Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach."
For a historical/theological view of the matters raised here, check out: "Ever Ancient, Ever New: Structures of Communion in the Church" by Archbishop John R. Quinn. Over the centuries there have been various networks connecting local/national/international/universal elements of the Catholic Church. "Synodality" can be a vague term; this brief book offers a glimpse at how these intermediate structures have and have not worked in the past.
I am confused. This story might be old, and I may not get an answer, but... Are all diocese part of a metropolis? From what I understood (perhaps incorrectly) an Archbishop has suffragan bishops in the diocese (i.e. Los Angeles has many bishops, but one Arch bishop). But other diocese have a single bishop (for example, the Bishop of Tucson does not have a suffragan bishop underneath him). Would Tucson be part of the Phoenix (a newer, but larger diocese with an archbishop)? That doesn't sound right? Do all diocese map to a metropolitan see? Where does Arlington and Richmond fall? Washington DC?
I've been impressed in the past by Sr. Carino's spiritual writing in the Lamp. Glad to see her writing analytical articles for the Pillar.
The underlying problem with Vos Estis is that the metropolitan knows his suffragans and probably doesn't know the victims, which makes him more likely to think the bishop his friend is innocent and the victims are liars.
The problem has never been that bishops assumed innocence regarding their brother bishops and therefore the victims being liars. The problem has been bishops knowingly covering up and protecting abusers. The underlying problem with Vos Estis is that it concentrates investigative responsibility to the very group that has been covering up for one another.
This is the problem with members of an occupational group judging its own. Doctors judging doctors, teachers judging teachers, policemen judging policemen, lawyers judging lawyers, etc. I recall our local Doctor Fox who I met in 1976. He was in the process of being struck off for the second time for horizontal relations with a lady patient. He got this one pregnant. Surely not even the General Medical Council will give him a third chance? Come 1988 and there was Doctor Fox working as a medical examiner for the Government. Maybe he was allowed only near men.
A teacher for a local school, one of the best in England, was (finally) fired after being caught in bed with a pupil. But he moved on to another school, who had to fire him again. What sort of reference did the first school give?
I've been told that in the United States the only thing a reference can say is whether one worked for them or not and the dates. I have no idea whether that is also the case in England or not. But you have definitely explained why it is necessary to have lay boards to deal with misbehaving members of occupational groups. Such groups tend to protect their own.
Here is part of the squalid story of that twice-fired teacher.
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/teacher-struck-gross-breach-trust-4208611?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
The truely staggering part (at the end of the link) is that he was not definitively banned from teaching for all eternity, plus a trillion years. He could reapply in five years' time. The second school, Tanbridge House, apparently knew something as they stipulated in his letter of appointment that he maintain professional boundaries.
The cliche of the bent teacher at old style English private schools was his reference when he got passed on as damaged goods to Private School B. Private School A would write a helpful reference explaining that "Mr Smith has given excellent service as a geography teacher, apart from an isolated indiscretion which I am sure he will not repeat". Even private schools dare not do that now, for fear of the lawyers and damages that would wipe out the school.
Is the Holy Father trying to envision the Church along more of a church of the nations model with less of the central authority that we’ve grown to expect in the Latin expression of the Church? That sounds like a rather ignorant question, I guess, but it’s my honest inquiry.
Para 32 of Evangelii Gaudium of 2013 contains an ominous passage which suggests a massive dilution of central authority in the Church. In fact, you can easily read it as an endorsement of Bishops' Conferences having doctrinal authority of their own. And thus the disintegration of the Church into regional or national fragments. As we have already seen, in a limited way, with the African Bishops and the application of Fiducia Supplicans.
"Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated.[37] Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach."
For a historical/theological view of the matters raised here, check out: "Ever Ancient, Ever New: Structures of Communion in the Church" by Archbishop John R. Quinn. Over the centuries there have been various networks connecting local/national/international/universal elements of the Catholic Church. "Synodality" can be a vague term; this brief book offers a glimpse at how these intermediate structures have and have not worked in the past.
I am confused. This story might be old, and I may not get an answer, but... Are all diocese part of a metropolis? From what I understood (perhaps incorrectly) an Archbishop has suffragan bishops in the diocese (i.e. Los Angeles has many bishops, but one Arch bishop). But other diocese have a single bishop (for example, the Bishop of Tucson does not have a suffragan bishop underneath him). Would Tucson be part of the Phoenix (a newer, but larger diocese with an archbishop)? That doesn't sound right? Do all diocese map to a metropolitan see? Where does Arlington and Richmond fall? Washington DC?