Canon Law – Legal Bishops’ Use of The Faithful’s Money

Some years ago I was at a parish that had a “capital campaign” to raise money to build a new multi-million dollar education building. The faithful were shown the survey of the land to be purchased onand drawings of the new building. Once the money was raised, I was told that there was a directive from powers beyond the parish level that the parish must use the money to build a new church, not an education building. I raised the issue that the money had been collected for an education building. I said that my family and others had been defrauded. Promptly a representative of the parish finance council contacted me and said that, if I wanted, our donated money would be refunded. I found out that, under canon law, money collected for one purpose cannot then be used for another purpose. (As an aside, the new church building was built, and, some years later, God flooded it, completely). I was then asked by the pastor personally to leave the parish. Since it was not his, I stayed.

Canon law – the Church’s own law – says this:

“Canon 1267, §3: Offerings given by the faithful for a specified purpose may be used only for that purpose.”

“Canon 1300: The intentions of the faithful who give or leave goods to pious causes . . . are to be most carefully observed, even in the manner of the administration and the expending of the goods . . . . “

I am unaware of any “Capital Campaign To Raise Money To Pay Off Sexual Assault Victims Of Priests & Bishops” in any parish or diocese in America; of a “Pay For Priest & Prelate Predators Campaign,” or of a fundraiser “For The Pastoral Malpractice Of Bishops Who Enabled, Fostered , And Shuttled Abusers & Criminals.” In short, I am aware of no Catholic in the USA who donated money for the bishops to use to pay off claims against the Church and against them. It would be very surprising if, court-sealed, secret settlement documents do not include the provisions that all claims against the bishops personally are also settled, and ended, by the agreements.

Read more

Editor’s note: Carefully check your parish’s annual financial accounting summary and pay special attention to any and all insurance costs listed therein, especially for health care, disability, workmen’s compensation and similar items. It’s very likely that you will find these costs to be anywhere from thirty to fifty percent higher than they should be, since many parishes are forced to pay a silent “tax” in order to refill the coffers of the dioceses’ “secret insurance fund” used to help pay off past settlements or to prepare for future settlements.   

Advertisements

Pope’s revised annulment procedures might make synod back room shenanigans unnecessary

newchurch

The changes move the church away from a set of 18th-century safeguards meant to make sure that the annulment process wasn’t subject to abuse, Martens said. Those changes, set up by Pope Benedict XIV, included a provision that would require a mandatory appeal of the lower court’s decision.

“What guarantee do you have for a fair trial if you take away those guarantees that were put in the past?” Martens said. “Sometimes you want to go so quickly, you miss elements and make mistakes. Procedure law takes time to unfold.”

Martens said the way Francis changed the annulment process was unusual, because he did not go through the Synod on the Family, as expected, in October. [It takes some things off the table for the Synod, which explains something of the timing of this.]

“If I were a bishop, I would be upset,” Martens said. “It’s a bit strange and even a sign of contradiction that a pope who is big on consultation and collegiality seems to forget that on something like this. It’s highly unusual for legislation like this to get through that way.”

Read more from Father Z

A primer on Church teaching regarding ‘same-sex marriage’

No matter which way the US Supreme Court rules in the “gay marriage” cases before it the international debate over the definition of marriage will continue because that debate is, at root, about matters beyond a civil court’s competence, things like the nature of human beings and the fundamental good of society. Because we Catholics are and will surely remain major participants in such a debate we should be clear among ourselves as to what our Church teaches in this area. I offer as a primer (I stress, primer) toward such better understanding my position on the following points.

1. The Catholic Church teaches, through its ordinary magisterium and with infallible certainty, that marriage exists only between one man and one woman.

Read more

Canonist Peters thinks Fr. Guarnizo was wrong in witholding the Eucharist from Barbara Johnson.

Lionel Andrades makes the case that Peters is wrong, and that just about anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear is capable of rightly discerning the gravely sinful public actions of that sadly misguided buddhist, lesbian, apostate Catholic woman.

According to Lionel:

Edward  Peters errs in assuming that the outward action does not indicate the internal thoughts or motivation. This is the moral theology of Fr. Bernard Haring and Fr. Charles Curran. Homosexuality and lesbianism will always be a mortal sin. It is grave matter and the woman has admitted it, in this case. She persists in receiving the Eucharist and still persists in the sin.

Read the entire commentary

In the Fr.Peter C.Phan Notification was the USCCB affirming the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation?

In the Notificationthe USCCB mentioned that there could be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. We accept this in principle. Defacto, this was known only to God.The popes and Church Councils accepted it in principle that a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance etc. They also knew that  these cases were known only to God. So they were not explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr. Peter C. Phan outright denies the magisterial teaching on salvation and so the USCCB rightly corrected him. Even though he denies a defined dogma the USCCB however allows him to offer Holy Mass. This is contrary to Canon Law. How is a priest in public mortal sin allowed to offer Holy Mass?
Read more from Lionel Andrades

The Archdiocese of Detroit vs. Real Catholic TV: All the latest … including the Ed Peters Canon Law controversy.

I have been doing much research in regard to Real Catholic TV (RCTV) and the Archdiocese of Detroit’s claims that RCTV is “not authorized to use the name Catholic.”  The Archdiocese can claim that all it wants, but these claims amount to little more than harassment and a public relations campaign aimed at undermining RCTV’s moral authority and influence.

Read the article

Read Steve Kellmeyer’s criticism of Ed Peters, the Canon Lawyer

Can a Catholic bishop become a heretic through sins of omission? If so … what then?


A recent post by Lionel Andrades explains that according to Canon Law, a bishop is a juridical person and is also required to be Catholic. As such, that bishop is obliged to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the bishop refuses to affirm the Catholic faith when questioned or challenged, it serves as a tacit denial.

In light of this … can a bishop who denies any part of the authentic Catholic faith legitimately continue to fulfill his duties as a Catholic and/or a bishop?

If so … how? If not … who is responsible for seeing that the problem is promptly and satisfactorily remedied?

Read the article at Lionel’s blog

ANTI SEMITIC TO BE A CATHOLIC:
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/anti-semitic-to-be-catholic.html

TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC ORGANISATIONS BEING MONITORED IN ROME: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/01/traditional-catholic-organisations.html