Seems as though even the Canonist who disagrees (mildly) with the Bishop doesn't have a leg to stand on:
The 2002 Norms were approved by the USCCB and Rome. The revised 2005 Norms have been approved by the USCCB and (apparently) sent to Rome for approval. Both of those sets of norms contain a number of provisions that go beyond civil law and the 1983 Code. The USCCB has the right and duty to verify that bishops are complying with the particular law of the Norms. The National Review Board, [home of the Screeching Female] operating under the Charter, seems to be the way the USCCB wants to conduct that verification process. But the point is arguable.
...Bp. Bruskewitz takes the position that nothing in the Charter needs to be clarified because it is not particular law, and therefore anything or anyone associated with it is irrelevant. What is there to clarify about a non-entity?
But are the Charter and the National Review Board really non-entities, or are they the (perhaps inaqeduately defined) mechanisms by which the USCCB verifies complaince with the Norms of particular law? And in any case, what in Bp. Bruskewitz's statement above indicates how his compliance with the Norms is to be assessed--well, beyond accepting his word as a man of integrity? (Well, actually, Mr. Peters, some Bishops DO have integrity.)
In fact, Mr. Peters, the National Review Board IS a non-entity, established by a paste-up/made-up/feelgood document called a "Charter," which has zero, zip, nada, NO legal force (except to provide a nice side-income for a bunch of folks.) You will recall that Bp. Bruskewitz said so when this whole silly thing came out (in Dallas.) Governor Keating found out, too: the Board and the Charter are eyewash--or as they say in Iowa, untreated bovine excrement.
Need pertinent language? Here's the Charter:
Article 8
...The Committee is to advise the USCCB on all matters related to child and youth protection and is to oversee the development of the plans, programs, and budget of the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is to provide the USCCB with comprehensive planning and recommendations concerning child and youth protection by coordinating the efforts of the Office and the National Review Board...
ARTICLE 9.
The Office for Child and Youth Protection, established by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, is to staff the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People and be a resource for dioceses/eparchies for the implementation of “safe environment” programs and for suggested training and development of diocesan personnel responsible for child and youth protection programs, taking into account the financial and other resources, as well as the population, area, and demographics of the diocese/eparchy...
ARTICLE 10.
The Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People is to be assisted by the National Review Board, a consultative body established in 2002 by the USCCB...
The Board will also advise the Conference President on future members...
What you have here is exactly what the USCC is, itself: a resource and consultative body which was established (by none other than Joey Bernardin, ex-Cardinal of Chicago) to ASSIST the Bishops.
Neither USCC, nor its Committees, have ANY authority. Authority rests with an individual Diocesan Bishop and the Pope. Period.
(This is why the "sandbox/holy water fountains" and "clean-feet babes" are illicit. The people who are pushing this crap have no authority to do so.)
Says Vere:
While the Bishop may not be in compliance with the national review board, he is in compliance with canon law -- both universal and particular. He has heard the advice of the Review Board and its various derivatives, and he has chosen to reject it where he feels their advice conflicts with his obligation as a Bishop to uphold the natural principles of justice. He has also defended the proper role of the episcopacy against those who would attempt to usurp it.
Put another way, what is particular law is the implementation of the national review board as outlined in the charter. The charter clearly establishes the national review board as a consultative body with no actual coercive power [authority] over bishops.
As to the tone of the Bishop's statement--I think he was remarkably reserved and civil.
Bruskewitz is evil. I upheld the Charter and he sucessfully got his so called Catholic County Attorney to make me plea to a misdemeanor after two of his hell bound priests Dan Sieker and Dan Rayer violated Penitent-Priest Privilage. My own priest in Omahaq stopped short of saying he is going to hell. The Archbishop of Omaha Elden Curtiss tried to convince prosecutors I was in the right. I was raped by my parish priest in Lincoln, Paul Margand, and he said my problems were the result of bad parenting. By the way, I'd a devout Catholic and in the K of C.
ReplyDelete